Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Acw Remediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EPA remediation plan for ACW site faces $8.6M shortfall; residential cleanup slated for summer
Summary
Staff told the CRA that the EPA controls design and implementation of the American Creosote Works remediation; the EPA representative said residential yard cleanup is the first priority with bids in March and a summer start, while a roughly $8.6 million funding gap remains for the EPA’s first phase and thermal extraction later is unfunded.
CRA staff updated the board on the American Creosote Works (ACW) site and described the limits of local control over Superfund remediation. Administrator Victoria said the EPA controls remediation design, timeline and funding; the CRA can pursue acquisition and zoning actions but cannot compel the EPA’s schedule.
Victoria said EPA work is divided into two phases. The agency’s phase‑1 effort is predominantly funded but staff identified an $8,600,000 gap that threatens full implementation; phase‑2 (thermal extraction / geothermic extraction to mobilize creosote) is currently unfunded. The mayor and staff reported active lobbying in Washington and communications with senators to close the gap.
Catherine Alexander, the city’s environmental coordinator, said the ACW site comprises about six parcels with different owners (one is a railway) and that EPA has engaged parcel owners because site access is necessary for remediation. She could not confirm which owners are willing to sell but said EPA contact with owners is ongoing.
An EPA representative (identified in discussion as Peter) outlined the remediation approach: residential soil removal is the highest immediate priority; contractors are expected to be solicited in March, with neighborhood walkthroughs and contractor bids, and residential cleanups projected to start in June or July and last about six months (timing subject to field findings). Peter said discussions with Escambia County landfill may allow some residential soil to be used as daily cover at the county landfill, which would reduce the size and height of on‑site caps and materially change the on‑site cap footprint.
Peter described subsequent phase‑1 actions including an underground barrier wall (concrete/slurry) to isolate creosote source areas from groundwater and capping/backfill operations so portions of the site without caps can support planting. He said phase‑2 thermal extraction (heating subsurface to mobilize creosote) is desirable but can be deferred; if delayed, the site could be turned into a park after part‑1 actions with an understanding that thermal work might require future, limited re‑work of the cap area.
Board members raised concerns about long Superfund timelines (site designation dates back to the early 1980s), potential liability if the city purchased property before remediation, and how changing disposal options (landfill acceptance of residential soils) would alter community‑approved reuse concepts. Staff advised continued lobbying and additional due diligence if acquisition proceeds. Peter and staff committed to community engagement including neighborhood walks and providing updates as contracts and scopes are finalized.
