The Environmental Issue that no one wants to talk about regarding Residential Development of the Hercules Golf Course
As some may have noticed, in the News-Journal this week was an article about the development of the Delaware National Golf Course (formally Hercules Country Club). In that article, the well publicized traffic issues represented the core focus of what was covered, followed by the existing residents from the Little Falls community who were concerned about preserving the character of their community by seeing the proposed townhouse phase, be stipulated as a over-55 restricted community.
In the next to last paragraph in the article, it briefly highlighted; "Other issues raised at Thursday's meeting include environmental concerns from both herbicides used on the golf course as well as commercial chemical development on a neighboring property that drains through the golf course."
The Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance has for 13+ years taken an active interest in the development of the Hercules Country Club property for two primary reasons; The transportation and/or road expansion necessary to deal with the additional traffic that would be generated, AND, The need for proper Clean-up of well-documented environmental problems that exist in various areas of the golf courses and bordering properties.
I spoke about these issues at the meeting Thursday night and surprised many residents, which prompted even greater concern with the information that they heard and were otherwise, completely unaware of.
The below document is a brief review of that material we have collected and steps that the MLCA has taken, to get this significant environmental issue addressed. Our surrounding community groups believe it is important to protect their residents and that of future residents. PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND READ THE DOCUMENT.
Bill Dunn - President
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance (MLCA)
302-598-6313
Environmental Issues
disregarded by DNREC and developers that will likely affect future homeowners
and the surrounding community with the development of the Hercules C. C.
property
By: Bill Dunn –
President, MLCA
Preface
Sometime in
2011, after Greenville Overlook 1 was underway, Toll Brothers began work on
moving through the development process to get approval of the remaining
18-holes of what was the Hercules Country Club.
Since DNREC had records of environmental spill(s) on the property, the
State’s Hazardous Substance Clean-up Act (HSCA) analysis was mandated. Toll Brothers hired Brightfield &
Associates, Inc. to do the evaluation.
Consistent with the process, soil analysis test bores were taken at
various locations and a Cleanup Plan was developed. Subsequently, DNREC met with Brightfield
several times and numerous changes were made in the planned cleanup. In late 2011, DNREC Administrators were
prepared to approve the cleanup plan, which is the point in time, the public
gets to review the plan and make comments to DNREC and the developer.
Public Hearing
The
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance, having been involved in issues regarding
traffic and environmental cleanup with Greenville Overlook 1, we took an
interest in the proposal. Members of the
MLCA’s Technical Working Group reviewed some of the material and decided to
attend and comment on issues like dust control (which was not handled very well
with Greenville Overlook 1) and the extent of the study done on the northern
border adjacent to the Aqualon LLC property (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hercules Inc.), where agricultural product testing was done by Hercules for
many years. A member of the MLCA that
lives in Brandywine Springs Manor and who’s home backed up to the first
property developed, spoke about the dust issues they experienced and how better
oversight was necessary. Having worked
in chemical research for more than 25 years, I spoke about dioxins and testing.
Despite
DNREC being aware of dioxins being present in some areas of the property, they
appeared to not to be very concerned in about the area I was emphasizing. The term “Dioxin” is a generic term that is
used to refer to a family of chemical compounds that are very toxic (one
specific compound, by EPA standards, is only tolerated to 3 parts per TRILLION). I commented on what and how research
compounds may have been handled, applied and disposed of after basic lab testing
in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Also
noteworthy, is the rain water from this testing field on the Aqualon property,
flows into two negative swales eventually converging and flowing down on to the
property where they want to build new homes.
I felt that this issue should have prompted DNREC to call for additional
test bores in this area of the property and a follow-up review before moving
forward. There were a few more brief
comments and the meeting was closed.
DNREC’s Secretary’s Approval
Four or five
weeks after the meeting, I contacted DNREC to see where the Remedial Action
Plan stood. I was told that the Hearing
Officer, Robert Haines, determined that all issues brought forward at the
Hearing were addressed by Brightfield and DNREC and that no further action was
necessary, completely contrary to what our comments emphasized. The Secretary, relaying on his staff and the
Hearing Officer, went ahead and signed the Plan, allowing the Plan to move
forward, barring any challenge of that decision.
Call for Environmental Appeal Board Hearing is filed
In a
situation such as this, the public has an opportunity to challenge the
Secretary’s decision by calling for an Environmental Appeals Board Hearing,
which we did. The Board is a State body,
of technically competent people whom have the appropriate backgrounds, to
determine if the Secretary made the proper decision. With the Appeal being filed, DNREC notifies
the AG’s office and an attorney is assigned to handle the case.
Seeing the
items brought forward by a specific community member, four neighbors in
Westminster and a recognized community group that had a history of involvement
in the overall property (i.e. Hercules C.C.) their initial consideration to
challenge our “Standing” regarding the Plan was quickly dismissed. The next issue was legal representation in
the matter, which the community must obtain.
Without going into detail, we had a lawyer willing to support our
effort. And, Toll Brothers having a
stake in the outcome, they interacted in the process.
Negotiated deal to avoid EAB Hearing
After
roughly a year of negotiations with DNREC’s attorney and Toll Bros. attorney,
we agreed to withdrawn our call for an EAB Hearing, IF three
requirements were met:
1) A community-approved, revised dust
control plan was addended to the legally binding plan, and
2) Two additional test bores would be
collected (3 depths/bore) from very specific locations, which we designated, on
the Aqualon property where water would run-off of and on to the property where
they wanted to build homes. Each one of
the six samples would be divided in half.
Before the samples were taken, DNREC provided the MLCA with a list of
Soil Analysis’s firms which we could choose to contract with for our analysis. We sent our six samples off, under tightly
controlled standards, to an approved firm for a detailed seventeen-analyte
analysis for both Furans and Dioxins.
The other halves, were sent off by Brightfield or Toll or Ashland for their
chosen analysis.
3) Finally, both sides would disclose
their results to the other and the Secretary AND, the Secretary would be
obligated to review the results of both analysis’s and make a final decision
based on those results.
MLCA’s Interpretation of their Sample Results sent to Colin O’Mara & others
The MLCA is providing, as
agreed upon, the results of the analysis that we have had done on two of six
samples we were provided at the end of May by DNREC and
Ashland Inc. The remainders of the samples tested, as well as the
other samples not yet tested, are being held by our DNREC-approved
Analytical firm (in a controlled environment) for possible additional
analysis.
Members of our
MLCA-Hercules Technical Group have looked at the data attached and find some
aspects quite concerning. I believe Dr. (Prof.) Detra's comments back to me and others in the
Technical group, touches on some issues that have been discussed so far:
=============
Assessment of the
polychlorinated diphenyl dioxins
and furans.
Submitted 15 June 2013
Summary
Six samples were
collected. According to the chain of custody they all required PCDD and PCDF analysis
by EPA SW846method
8290. However only samples 1 and 4 were analyzed in this way. All samples were
subjected to percent solids determination.
Sample 1 had apparent measurable
residues of all PCDD and PCDF analytes.
Specific analytes were converted to TEQs or “Toxic Equivalents” to 2,3,7,8-TCDD per
the method using TEFs or
“Toxic Equivalency Factors.” They were all added together and a final Toxic
equivalent to 2,3,7,8-TCDD was determined to be 18 ppt (parts per trillion).
Sample 2 had apparent
measurable residues of all PCDD and PCDF analytes except for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF. The data were treated in the
same manner as required by the method and the toxic equivalency to 2,3,7,8-TCDDwas 19 ppt.
The method blank had some
sort of contamination for most of the furans. Although there was background for
total TCDD it
was somehow overlooked and was not included in the reports of the samples.
However, 2,3,7,8-TCDD itself did not have background
interference.
The laboratory control
spike performed well for all analytes. even with the background interference.
Assessment
I am concerned that in
sample 1 there were ten analytes reports
which were qualified with Q, meaning there was some sort of quality control
failure in their measurement. In sample 2 there were eleven quality control
failures. The background interference is bothersome but they seem to have had
little impact on the final values. Both samples had such high values of OCDD that it exceeded the upper limit of
the standard curve so it had to be estimated. Often laboratories would dilute
and reanalyze. However, the TEQ for OCDD is only 0.001 so it would not have
much impact on the final values.
It appears the data are
valid. The report does not assign any significance to the final reported TEQs.
This may vary from state to state and it does vary according to the planed use
for the site or how it is currently being used. I did check to see what URS
(Uniform Risk Standard) regulations are for PCDD and PCDF toxic equivalents with DNREC. I
did find conditions for surface soil under the category: “Protection of the
Environment.” There was no limit based on toxic equivalents. However, if we do
hold faith in the principles of the TEQs, we should be able to use the URS limits for
2,3,7,8-TCDD as
the same as TEQS. The TEQs are
supposed to express the total risk based on that form of TCDD. The
DNREC URS
limit is 3 ppt.
So based on the
“Protection of the Environment” criterion, the residues in this soil greatly exceed the DNREC version of URS limits. Some might
complain that many of the analytes used
for this determination are estimated because they were below the lower standard
curve limit or above the highest limit. But this is what we have to work with
now. It appears some remediation for PCDDs and PCDFs is necessary.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Detra,
Ph.D.
=======================
In my assessment, 4
of the 17 analytes (2-furan & 2-dioxin ) in Sample 1
and similarly, 4 of the 17 analytes (2-furan
& 2-dioxin ) in Sample 2, were reported at or above the instrument's calibration standards and EPA 1989 TEF, with an additional 5 and 4 analytes
respectively, showing values above tolerable levels, but below the lowest
calibration standard (i.e. a "fitted" value based on extrapolating confirmed standards). Not being
an expert, yet having had numerous discussions with others of similar
backgrounds and knowledge as Dr. Detra, I and others in the MLCA have a great deal of
concern.
The locations where the
samples were taken, were specifically chosen because of the possibility that
those locations would highlight how these types of chemical could have possibly
migrated to where residential development is proposed to occur.
Again, not being an
expert, yet having a reasonable degree of understanding of
approaches applied in research and chemistry in general, this
information should support the supposition that DNREC needs
to reevaluate the Remedial Action Plan for the Hercules Golf Course (DE-1492),
as well as start/continue a Remedial Action Plan for the now confirmed
issues that exist on the Aqualon property.
Regrettably and to my
surprise, after a discussion with our legal representation, it can be
interpreted, that regardless of what DNREC chooses
to do with this information and all other information being equally shared by
all parties involved, we have agreed to withdrawal our EAB appeal/hearing. I would hate to
think my confusion in the stipulation set forth before the sampling could have
a long-term negative effect on the present and future residents in this
area. We at the MLCA continue to be firmly committed to supporting
and protecting all the residents and property owners in the area.
We
request that this note and attached data, as well as all other information
regarding the recent sampling analysis, be provided to all members of the
EAB.
We look forward to seeing
the other sets of results which we expect will include data from all six
samples to the same level of detail and precision that we applied with the
community's limited funding and what the Secretary and DNREC staff is willing
to do to rectify any shortcomings that may exist in their earlier
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four
Pages of MLCA’s Data
The Analysis done on
the sister samples
I believe
that Ashland/Toll/DNREC expected the MLCA to do a
general, total concentration analysis of our
samples. The State has a “total
concentration” permissible limit that is roughly 20 ppm. Knowing that some specific Dioxins have
limits of 3 parts/trillion, we thought it was important to do the
detailed analysis, despite the additional expense.
Not wanting
to provide any more detail than was necessary, Ashland/Toll/DNREC chose to do
the total concentration analysis, which provided data results just under the 20
ppm limit. [DETAILS are IMPORTANT!]
The Secretary’s Decision
Despite the
MLCA’s Dr. Detra acknowledgement of short coming in some of the data results,
DNREC and/or the Secretary, chose to completely disregard the results and NOT
call for additional analysis.
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DIVISION OF WASTE AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
391 LUKENS DRIVE
NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE 19720-2774
SITE INVESTIGATION
August 14, 2013
Mr. William Dunn
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance
RE:
Aqualon Sampling Results – May
2013
Hercules
Road and Lancaster Pike Site, DE-1492
Dear Mr. Dunn,
Thank you for your comments and those of Dr. Detra
concerning the results of the May 2013 sampling event at the Aqualon
property. The purpose of this letter is
to review all of the data now available and inform you of the Department’s path
forward on the Hercules Rd & Lancaster Pike Site. There are three sets of dioxin analysis data
available now for the Aqualon site: the May 2013 Ashland samples (3), the split
samples from that sampling event (2), and the May 2012 Ashland samples
(3).
With regard to the 2013 split sample results, there
is an error on the Test America results summary pages for the two samples,
pages 11 and 13 (highlighted copies are attached), which affects Dr. Detra’s
evaluation of the results. The
next-to-the-last column is headed “EPA 1989 Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF)
”. The value given for
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(OCDD) is 0.001. This value
was adopted by the US EPA in 1989. In
December 2010, the US EPA issued an update in a document titled: “Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors
(TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachorodibenzo-pdioxin
and Dioxin-Like Compounds”
(www.epa.gov/raf/files/tefs-for-dioxin-epa-00-r-10-005-final.pdf ). The TEF given for OCDD in Table 2 of this
document (attached) is 0.0003. The toxic equivalent (TEQ) concentration
given in the lab report for the split samples is thus inflated by a factor of
three.
It should be further noted that the predominant
parameter contributing to the TEQ
concentration in the split samples is OCDD. The OCDD results for the split samples are
qualified and would not be considered valid by DNREC for decision making
purposes. Note that the results
reported for the split samples are all qualified as “B” meaning that the
analyte was detected in the method blanks or “J” meaning that the value is
estimated. (These qualifiers appear in a
foot note on the second page of each result summary.)
The split sample results are consistent with the
three samples analyzed by Ashland in 2013 when 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) was not
detected in any of the samples. There
was no congener analysis reported for the Ashland 2013 samples. This result is also consistent with the
previous three soil samples taken at the site by Ashland in May 2012. Those samples did receive congener analysis
and results were similar to the 2013 split samples including the qualifiers for
OCDD.
In summary, six soil samples from the Aqualon site
have been analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Two
of those samples were split and analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. All eight results were the same: 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected.
Since there is no evidence indicating that dioxin
contamination is present in soil at the Aqualon property, the Department will
not alter the current Final Plan of Remedial Action (“Final Plan”) for the
adjacent Hercules Road and Lancaster Pike
Site. The Department will
require the Final Plan to be implemented at that Site in accordance with the
Secretary’s Order of March 22, 2012.
Please call me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Johnson, PE
|
|
|
|
Site Investigation and Restoration Section
In our interpretation, essentially,
because the instrumentation standards samples that are used to calibrate the
instrument, in the case of 5 of 17 analytes analyzed, did not go to a low
enough in concentration to guarantee accuracy.
Because of that, they through-out ALL the 17 analytes detected.
MLCA’s Conclusion
We have very little doubt, that
there is a significant danger not only on the Aqualon property, but
where rainwater has ran off that property and onto the areas proposed for
residential development. Our position IS
NOT based on conjecture and speculation, but scientific and engineering
principles.
It is our belief that DNREC has
been negligent in, if nothing else, not calling for additional sampling based
on the result of our independent
laboratory’s findings and analysis by our chemical expert.
As previously stated in other
forums, the MLCA is NOT opposed to the development of the property in
general. If environmental and transportation
requirements and responsibilities are met and all other requirements under
today’s UDC are responsibly addressed, we are more than willing to not oppose
the proposes development of this land. However, until our concerns are properly addressed by DNREC
and Petinaro, we remain opposed to any development of the property.
