JOHNSTON, R.I. (WPRI) – Federal and state officials celebrated in 2018 when they announced a $100 million settlement with subsidiaries of Stanley Black and Decker Inc. to clean up three miles of toxic soil in the Woonasquatucket River.

The remediation of the Superfund site would ultimately lead to the reopening of the Woonasquatucket River, which cuts through multiple towns. The river has been closed to swimming, fishing and other recreational activities for generations.

"It's on something called the National Priorities List, which means this is one of the biggest contaminated sites or most seriously contaminated sites in the country," Terry Gray, director of the R.I. Department of Environmental Management, told Target 12.

Fast-forward six years, however, and there’s little to show for the 2018 settlement.

Federal officials point to some cleanup work that's been done. But the three miles of toxic soil remain, and families are still receiving summer robocalls with the same warnings that Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. remembers hearing when he was a child growing up in town.

"Don't go anywhere near it," Polisena said.

A Target 12 investigation has since learned the lack of cleanup activity is partly the result of stalled negotiations over what it would take to dump the roughly 300,000 tons of toxic soil at the state's central landfill, managed by the quasi-public R.I. Resource Recovery Corp.

"It's frustrating," Polisena said. "We need to show the people that we can all come together as government agencies."

The impasse has frustrated federal officials to the point that it's spurred behind-the-scenes talks about potentially changing course, avoiding the landfill altogether and instead capping the toxic soil into the area around the river, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

A similar tactic was used in the northern part of the Superfund site, near the housing complex known as Centredale Manor, which is one pocket where cleanup has happened since 2018.

But Gray doesn't like any idea that doesn't involve extracting and removing the toxins completely, saying he's concerned about the surrounding areas because climate change has led to more frequent flooding.

"That's not something that we're in favor of at all," Gray said. "It's a business decision by Resource Recovery as to whether or not they do this or not."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – which oversees the cleanup efforts – denied that any alternate plan is currently in place, even though local and state officials said it's being considered.

EPA spokesperson Jeff Norcross said the federal agency also doesn't know how much of the $100 million has been spent so far because they are only overseeing the cleanup efforts.

He also highlighted work that's already been done, including capping the former mill area where the toxins originated, along with some of the surrounding commercial and residential areas.

"Pre-design investigations and designs for the downstream portions of the site are completed or underway," he added. "Site preparations necessary for future remediation are also partially completed and in progress."

Federal officials acknowledged that negotiations at the landfill remain ongoing and that the EPA "continues to work with our state and local partners on this and all aspects of the site."

But Target 12 has confirmed federal officials have become increasingly concerned that management at the central landfill is dragging its feet and trying leverage more money out of a deal.

The quasi-public agency -- also located in Johnston -- has the ability to accept this type of toxic soil and store it safely. Extracting the toxic soil and shipping it somewhere else could drive up the price, giving the landfill a strong position in negotiations.

Resource Recovery executive director Luigi Vergato said in an email his agency is still weighing several factors, as it does with all requests to dump toxins in the landfill. The considerations include whether the work can be done in a way that ensures the health and safety of the people doing the work, he said.

“We will also consider whether or not the acceptance of the soils would be beneficial to the operation of the landfill and the communities where the contaminated soils are found, while also weighing the potential environmental risks and liabilities of the accepting this material,” Vergato said.  

In a Sept. 4 email, Vergato told Target 12 he expected the landfall agency “to complete its evaluation of these factors and to render a decision within the next 90 days.”

Polisena, a lawyer, said he's eager for the work to get underway after all these years because the waterway has been shut down to his residents for so long.

"It'd be huge," he said. "It would be huge for the environment, it'd be huge for quality of life, and I think most importantly, we want this river clean so it can be used again."

The mayor said he'd reserve judgment on whether it'd be safe to keep the toxins near the river until the outside engineers and environmentalists could explain the risks to him clearly.

But Polisena said he was confident neighbors wouldn't like any idea that doesn't involve removing the toxic soil completely. And he acknowledged he wouldn't want to raise his family in the area if he knew so many toxins were capped nearby.

"I would look to go elsewhere," he said.

At the state level, Gray said he's especially worried about any plan that jeopardizes nearby wetlands. If wetlands are eliminated, the parties would have to create an equal area of new wetlands somewhere else. But the director said his agency would oppose any plan that doesn't involve extraction.

"Flooding is a real potential," he said. "More aggressive flows are a potential and I think it would be really hard to maintain the safety and integrity of a disposal unit that's anywhere within the floodplain of the river."

Meanwhile, residents like Michael Korba are eager to see the pace of the cleanup speed up.

Korba, who takes a walk through the area twice a day, said he'd rather not see the toxic soil remain in the area, arguing it's time the river can reopen safely to both humans and wildlife.

“They need to get working on it,” he said.