Contributed Photo
Someday, Six Lakes, a.k.a. the Olin Pine Swamp, a.k.a. the Powder Farm, could be “a tranquil oasis for you to go to — not just for Hamden, but for the region,” said Elizabeth Hayes, a longtime community activist who is also on the Democratic Town Committee in Hamden and on the town’s wetlands commission. “We’ll just ask you to be patient.”
That was the prevailing tone of a community meeting held Tuesday evening by the Six Lakes Park Coalition in Thornton Wilder Hall in Miller Library in Hamden, to discuss the latest developments in the remediation of the 102-acre site in southern Hamden. The coalition — represented at the meeting by Hayes and Justin Farmer — has grown since its inception to encompass environmental groups (Save the Sound, Farmington Canal Commission, West River Watershed Association, Hamden Land Conservation Trust), religious groups (Christian Tabernacle Baptist Church, Spring Glen Church, Congregations Organized for a New Connecticut), and community organizers from each of the site’s adjacent neighborhoods.
The results of that study are in.
The conclusion: they need more data.
John Duff, an environmental analyst at DEEP, and Raymond Frigon, director of DEEP’s remediation division, were on hand once again to explain why.
A 3-Dimensional Model Of Contamination
Duff and Frigon.
Duff began with a brief overview of the site and its history: Winchester bought it in 1899 and used it as a shooting range and waste dump until the town ordered it to stop in 1966. The site — by then owned by the Olin Corporation, which also owned Winchester — then went dormant. Environmental investigations in the 1980s led to a consent order from DEEP (then called DEP) to remediate the site in 1986. Olin did “a considerable amount of remediation,” Duff said, and further data collection in the 1990s, but then the site went dormant again until 2022, when DEEP made it a priority again (read this previous article for more details) to see what was needed to “bring it back to what it really should be,” Duff said. In the meantime, the Pine Swamp has become heavily forested and home to a lot of wildlife; no one knows for sure just how much.
Last year’s data collection, Duff explained, was shaped by the mandate in the 1986 consent order, which had identified five general areas of concern, clustered in the southern portion of the Pine Swamp behind the buildings on Leeder Hill Drive and Putnam Avenue. In these places, Olin had burned waste, disposed of incinerator ash, and dumped battery waste, among other activities. However, even a review of previous environmental studies suggested that the problems at the Powder Farm were more widespread than that, with “far more areas of concern,” Duff said. There were areas of exposed slag and demolition debris, and areas that had been used for arms testing and disposal. There also has been illegal dumping there, by “locals and non-locals.”
“The site in its entirely is going to need some sort of level investigation,” Duff said.
Basing a remediation plan on the data from the 1980s and 1990s can’t happen because the data is old and “a lot of things can happen in 20 or 30 years,” Duff said. Since then, data collection technology has also advanced, and new data could offer a much more complete picture of what’s needed at the Pine Swamp.
“You need to collect enough data” to “create a three-dimensional model” of the site, so “we have an idea of how deep the contamination goes and how far it spreads,” Duff said.
Collecting the data, however, will be difficult. Much of it involves taking readings of vapors from the soil, which involves planting small pipes like wells in the terrain that are then sealed at the top. The researchers hired by Olin this year found that securing adequate places for those wells was tricky owing to the hilly terrain and dense foliage. In addition, researchers learned that the sealant used at the ends of the pipes to trap and measure vapors attracted deer, who then removed the sealant and destroyed the results for half of the wells the researchers made. Researchers also can’t yet collect contamination data from the wetlands that comprise half the site.
But the data the researchers did collect, from dozens of locations in the Pine Swamp, made clear the general extent of the problem. “At each location there was some chemical that exceeded the standard for both soil and groundwater,” Duff said. “The results supported and confirmed” the historical data but still “doesn’t give us the detail needed for cleanup.” (View Olin’s full report here.) Frigon expected a work plan to conduct further investigation to materialize in the summer or fall.
Which Level Of Remediation?
Part of the reason for needing more detailed data stems from the fact that Connecticut currently has two standards for remediation based on land use. Remediation for industrial and commercial use is less involved and less expensive, but disallows certain uses for the land once remediation is done. Remediation for residential use is more in-depth and more expensive, but allows the land to be used without restrictions once it’s completed.
Most of the Pine Swamp is currently zoned as open space, with a small part of it zoned for commercial or industrial use, so Olin, as its owner, can theoretically opt for industrial remediation and be in compliance with the 1986 consent order. To use the property as a park, however, would require residential-use remediation. Olin can “clean up to whatever standard they want to,” Frigon said, and “they may determine that it is in their best interest to clean to industrial standards.”
Though he added that the corporation is open to “going further” than that, to reach residential standards. The difference in part comes down to dollars and cents: the more detailed data are on hand, the more clearly remediation plans can be drawn, and the more concretely Olin, DEEP, and the public can talk about how much money is needed to create a park out of a contaminated forest — and whether Olin will foot the bill entirely itself, or get state support for more remediation.
The many facets of remediation work emerged during the question-and-answer period after Duff’s presentation. It’s unclear what the land — now a dense forest interlaced with ponds — would look like after remediation. Soil excavation remains “popular,” Frigon said, with possible resulting changes in the landscape. Three decades ago, it was the only option for a site like the Powder Farm. But “today we have so many more tools at our disposal,” Frigon said, depending on the pollutant. Some remediation methods allow for the contaminants to remain in place; others break down the pollutants where they are.
Remediation at the Pine Swamp is complicated by the fact that half of it is wetlands connected to the public water supply. So far, Frigon said, there has been no evidence that pollutants from the Powder Farm are entering the water supply, either through the reservoir or through groundwater; the pollution on the site “does not appear to be moving.” Olin, he was adamant, cannot “unearth pollution” in a way that changes that, and the “remediation action plan will need to address that.”
The conversation also allowed Frigon to touch on changes in remediation regulations that may be coming down the pike. One involves the creation of a third category of remediation, for “passive recreation,” that could come into play by the time Pine Swamp remediation plans are ready to be drawn up. Passive recreation standards are “not yet woven into anticipated legislation,” he said. “We need to hear more from the citizens of our state” to make it happen, but it could be “very helpful to the cause.”
Frigon also teased that “Connecticut is about to go through a significant transformation in how we address pollution in our state,” he said. Under the Transfer Act of 1985, currently many pollution concerns on properties arise when the property changes hands; the previous owner must disclose it, and the obligation to deal with it transfers to the next owner. Connecticut is an outlier in this regard, and officials have complained about it for years. Reforming the regulations to a “you spill it, you clean it” system, Frigon said, would align Connecticut with most other states. These reforms might happen in 2025, and could affect remediation at the Pine Swamp.
Frigon reminded the meeting attendees that once Olin completes remediation, as the owner of the Powder Farm, it could sell the property to whoever it wanted. But Olin so far has been a compliant partner, and Frigon believed that attending to environmental concerns while working harmoniously with a corporate partner was possible; “the two can go hand in hand,” he said.
Farmer and Hayes.
Frigon also understood that a park was “definitely the desire of the community,” he said. “We all know that having green space … speaks to quaility of life.” At several points during the Q&A, he talked about the importance of continued community enthusiasm. “Remaining engaged” with “local leadership” and “applying the right pressure” on government officials will “help pave the way. That’s how you get from Point A to Point B on projects like this” — including community input into the remediation plan itself.
Frigon suggested the community hold meetings this summer to clarify what they want a Six Lakes Park to look like, what amenities they want it to have (just hiking trails? Or gardens? Tennis courts?) “What is it that you want to see this property become?” he said.
The call for community involvement found willing ears in the room, from community members and elected officials alike. “This is going to be a project that will take a lot of time,” Hamden mayor Lauren Garrett had said at the beginning of the meeting, and she wanted to “make sure it’s done right.” She noted that the idea of a state park has gotten support from the state — Sen. Martin Looney expressed his enthusiasm for the idea in November. Garrett was pushing for a park “that everyone has access to,” meaning that the site should be “remediated to a high standard so that everyone can use it.”
Echoing the sentiment were a group of students from Hamden High School’s Eco Club, who asked how they might get involved in the effort to create Six Lakes Park. One student suggested if high-school students had more information, even more of them would get involved. The club received a round of applause from meeting attendees.
“You have a seat at the table,” Farmer said. Hayes suggested that perhaps the coalition could do a presentation at the school.
“Just invite us. We’d be glad to come,” she said.