EPA announces proposed remedial action plan for BoRit site

20 Jan 2017 by under News

slide6 100x100 EPA announces proposed remedial action plan for BoRit siteAn disposal site for nearly a century, BoRit Asbestos Site in Ambler, Pennsylvania, now has a long-term plan through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 38-acre BoRit site was included as part of the EPA’s Superfund Program, which provides federal funding for remediation, eight years ago, and last month the agency released its proposed long-term remedy for the site—open to public comment through March 3.

The site, co-owned by Whitpain Townshp, the Wissahickon Waterfowl Preserve and Kane-Core Inc., a real estate development company, consisted of a 25-foot asbestos waste pile as it was once a disposal site for Keasbey & Mattison Co., a building products manufacturing company, according to the agency.

“EPA efforts began at the site to eliminate the immediate risk and prevent any asbestos from moving off site, following by a several-year remedial investigation/feasibility study process that examined potential ways to address the presence of asbestos at BoRit,” according to The Times Herald.

The EPA determined that the best long-term approach to the site would be capping “to stabilize the site,” Jill Lowe, remedial project manager for BoRit, told the news source. Capping involves layering geotextile material, anywhere from 10 inches to 10 feet of clean soil and then topping with vegetative covering, concrete cable mats or a clay liner to prevent further asbestos exposure. The parcels would only be allowed for use as recreational/open space usage.

The option costs approximately $27 million but $25 million of the work has already been completed with the remaining $2 million set aside for future costs, including quarterly site inspections, annual sampling, creating protocols for routine maintenance and repairs, and establishing extreme weather procedures, according to Lowe.

Other alternatives, including solidification and excavation, were rejected due to the potential for asbestos exposure, high costs and feasibility concerns.

 

Comments are closed.