FINAL MEETING SUMMARY OF EPA HOUSATONIC RIVER … · Mr. Tushar Kansal, Citizens Coordinating Council facilitator from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), introduced himself and

Housatonic CCC Meeting, Connecticut Subcommittee – April 2016 1

EPA Housatonic River Citizens Coordinating Council (CCC)

Housatonic Valley Regional High School Falls Village, Connecticut

April 27, 2016 5:30 PM to 9:00 PM

Meeting Summary

Participants: The list of participants is attached. Introduction Mr. Tushar Kansal, Citizens Coordinating Council facilitator from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), introduced himself and thanked attendees for coming to the meeting. Ms. Judy Herkimer of the Housatonic Environmental Action League stated that the number of Housatonic River Citizens Coordinating Council (CCC) meetings, particularly meetings of the Connecticut Subcommittee of the CCC, has decreased in recent years and is insufficient. She also commented that the notes from the meetings are subject to revision by EPA. Mr. Kansal noted that CBI drafts the meeting summaries and retains authority to sign off on the final version. Mr. Dean Tagliaferro from EPA emphasized that EPA’s proposed edits to the summary are technical in nature and are circulated to CCC members “in redline” before the meeting summaries are approved by the CCC and thereby finalized. Mr. Kansal then led a round of introductions for CCC members and members of the public and reviewed the meeting agenda. He noted that there would be presentations from members of the CCC and federal and state agencies and discussion periods following each presentation. Ms. Herkimer suggested that the meeting could be a last chance for stakeholders to interface with EPA before a final decision on the Rest of River remedy. She commented that a number of participants may want to offer comments, so it would be important to keep the presentations short. TAG Grant Recipient Update Tim Gray from the Housatonic River Initiative (HRI) provided background on HRI, the technical assistance grant (TAG) program, and EPA’s proposed cleanup plan. He noted that HRI first received a TAG grant in 1995, and has been coming to meetings and fighting for a stronger Housatonic River cleanup for 25 years. HRI is concerned that EPA’s proposed cleanup is inadequate. Mr. Gray suggested that the amount of PCBs to be removed under the current plan


is 2 million cubic yards lower than under an alternative plan from 2008, which had been released by General Electric (GE). Under the current plan, a significant quantity of PCBs will remain in the river and will be capped. The cap will be only a few feet deep. HRI is concerned about this approach because of the sizable beaver population in the river, and their digging behavior. Mr. Tagliaferro from EPA clarified that the cap has not been designed but that it would likely be one to two feet deep. Mr. Gray added that HRI believes the EPA plan does not include enough removal of PCBs, in particular in areas where there is sensitive wildlife. In addition, GE has indicated that it wants to dump PCBs on the banks of the river in nearby towns, including Housatonic, Lee, and Lenox. He commented that because dumps inevitably volatilize, people will be inhaling PCBs near the river and around these dumps. To HRI, GE’s stance on this issue is extremely troubling and problematic. During the discussion period, comments focused on the functioning of the TAG grant program, the potential for using alternative technology as an element of the cleanup, and specific historical events related to the cleanup. Participants offered the following comments and questions. Responses from CCC members and EPA are in italics, and the institutional affiliation of the respondent is noted:

• What is TAG? HRI response: TAG stands for “Technical Assistance Grant.” There is a law that allows citizens working towards a better cleanup to get a grant. HRI has received that grant for approximately the last fifteen or sixteen years.

• Are TAG grants given to stakeholder groups at all superfund sites? o EPA response: They can be. In the early years of the superfund law, observers

came to realize that local stakeholders often lacked the resources or understanding to adequately review technical information. Congress responded by adding a provision into the superfund law that allows community groups that are heavily involved in the process to apply for TAG grants to help them keep apprised of the cleanup. EPA awarded that grant to HRI years ago.

o Housatonic Environmental Action League response: Over the years, HRI has brought in a number of experts to review technical documents, interpret them, and draft responses. These experts have maintained their objectivity. The TAG grant has been very useful in helping us understand esoteric science. Unfortunately, there is a lot of time remaining in this process and HRI’s TAG money is running out. We would ask that participants who plan to offer verbal or written comments to EPA on the cleanup please note that HRI deserves another TAG grant.


o HRI response: We have worked with three highly qualified experts: Dr. Peter deFur, Dr. Steven Effler, and Dr. David Carpenter. Dr. Carpenter is one of the world’s leading researchers on the human health impacts of PCBs.

• What alternatives have experts developed for disposing of the PCBs? HRI response: We have been advocating for the use of alternative treatment technologies. A number of companies from around the world have pending technology, and we know of one company that wants to get involved with this cleanup and demonstrate that it can destroy PCBs. We support an adaptive management approach, which will allow us to use new technology if it emerges in the coming years. We would like companies to be able to conduct pilot tests. In terms of the current plan, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) has suggested that PCBs should be taken off site to secure landfills. However, many secure landfills are in communities of color. Other communities have voted to host landfills in order to improve their tax base. We would prefer that our PCBs not be exported to other communities. Nevertheless, what is most important is that the PCBs are removed from the river and disposed of away from our communities. We are concerned that if PCBs remain at the bottom of the river, they will move around in the system and continue having a negative impact on human health and wildlife.

• We are concerned that the liners on landfill containers often fail. In Pittsfield, children need to be called in when it rains because of PCB off-gassing. It is not acceptable to have children playing in toxic waste. Will the funds cover repeated repairs to the landfill containers? HRI response: TAG funds are not used for landfill repairs. However, HRI has experience with similar issues. Allendale School sits on a PCB hotspot. In 1992, there was a large protest with hundreds of people, and Mass DEP agreed to cap the school grounds. They proposed placing two feet of clean soil above the contaminated soil, but we did not trust that this would be effective and insisted on regular testing. The cap failed multiple times. Finally, in 1999, as part of the Consent Decree, GE agreed to fully excavate the Allendale School grounds. Although they excavated 25 feet of the school grounds, they did not excavate under the school. On a nearby dump, known as Hill 78, they added a cap but no liner. We believe PCBs are still flowing out of the dump. In addition, we were told that the PCBs would not cross the river, but huge amounts of PCBs have been found across the river. Children should not be playing there. GE should have been required to relocate the school.

• We should not feel responsible if the PCBs need to be removed to other communities, because GE created this problem and it is GE’s responsibility to fix it.

• Why is there no one from GE at this meeting? HRI response: GE has not been attending CCC meetings for about the last year.


• Can someone at EPA please clarify what happened at Allendale School? EPA response: In 1999, all the contaminated soil except the soil directly beneath the school building was excavated and removed. There is no cap on the school grounds.1 The PCBs were brought to GE’s property and capped there.

• We know that there are children playing where PCB off-gassing is occurring. There are still PCBs around the school.

o EPA response: Hundreds of air samples have been taken in and around the school. These tests have found PCB levels one hundred times lower than cited in EPA’s guidance for PCBs in schools. The testing includes an independent study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (Mass DPH) in which Dr. Carpenter’s lab analyzed the results pro bono. Dr. Carpenter is one of the three experts who has worked with HRI.

o HRI response: There is a troublesome history behind the air sample testing. Years ago, Mass DEP insisted that there were no problems with the air quality in the school, but HRI wanted to test the school HVAC unit filters. Mass DPH agreed to test the filters, but the teachers and janitors at Allendale School told HRI that they did not trust the process and wanted independent testing, so the janitors set aside some filters for HRI to test. HRI then sent the filters to David Carpenter for independent testing. When the results came back, the Mass DPH tests showed no PCBs but Dr. Carpenter’s tests showed significant levels of PCBs. This caused a major uproar. In response, Mass DPH agreed to make the HVAC filters available to anyone who wanted to test them. However, the day before the filters were scheduled to be made available, the Pittsfield Department of Public works changed all the filters. We were never able to conduct the testing that was promised.

Rest of River Update Mr. Dean Tagliaferro from EPA provided an update on the cleanup plan for the “Rest of River.” The Rest of River section of the Housatonic runs from the confluence of the East and West Branches downstream into Connecticut. It starts two miles south of the GE facility and continues to Derby Dam. Mr. Tagliaferro’s update addressed the status of the Rest of River plan, the ongoing decision process for the plan, and a summary of changes in the proposed actions for Connecticut. Slides from Mr. Tagliaferro’s presentation are available on EPA‘s website at https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/586215.

1 EPA note inserted during editing for clarification. Some soil at depth and adjacent to the school foundation was also left in place in order to maintain the structural stability of the building.

https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/586215


Mr. Tagliaferro noted that the Consent Decree established a framework for selecting the remediation plan. After 14 years of sampling, risk assessment, and feasibility studies, EPA issued a draft permit, which proposed a remedial plan. There were public hearings and a comment period through October 2014. EPA then reviewed and evaluated the comments, made revisions to the draft plan, and provided it to GE per the terms of the Consent Decree. GE then had an opportunity to invoke administrative dispute resolution regarding the revised plan. GE disputed almost every element of the plan. The administrative dispute resolution process is currently underway. GE submitted a statement of its position, and EPA replied. An EPA employee in Boston rule on the dispute. The decision-maker is currently reviewing the parties’ submissions and will make a decision about the dispute. After the decision-maker rules on the dispute, EPA will issue the final permit. If the final permit includes significant revisions, then there may be an additional public comment period on the revised portions. The final permit will include a summary response from EPA to all public comments submitted on the draft permit. After EPA issues the final plan, parties can file an appeal before EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board. Any party who submitted a comment on the draft plan has the right to appeal the final plan. The Environmental Appeal Board will then rule on the appeal. If the Environmental Appeals Board upholds the permit, then the appellants can file an appeal in federal court before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. After the First Circuit rules on the dispute, assuming it is in EPA’s favor, EPA would likely go forward based on that ruling and the permit would become effective. So even in that scenario, there is a lot of time before the permit will go into effect. Mr. Tagliaferro highlighted changes that have been made to the draft permit since EPA initially provided it for public comment in 2014, as well as two elements that have remained consistent. The first element that has not changed involves EPA’s proposal that all sediment and soil be transported offsite to a licensed disposal facility. This was EPA’s original plan and it remains EPA’s plan today. There is no proposal for any local dumps. The second consistent element of the plan is that it does not require active remediation or sediment removal in the Connecticut part of the river. GE is required to conduct monitoring in Connecticut, but not removal, and this has not changed. A number of elements of the draft plan have been amended. Under the initial draft plan, if an entity needed to conduct future work or projects as a result of PCB contamination — for example if the entity might be disturbing contaminated sediment — GE was required only to pay the incremental cost difference of the work and was not required to perform the work


itself. Under the current draft plan, however, GE is itself responsible for taking action in areas where PCBs are known to be greater than one part per million. In addition, in order to address concerns that GE could delay in conducting this type of work, there are now timeline requirements such as a 30-day deadline for GE to submit a work plan. Additional changes to the draft permit primarily affect Massachusetts. These include clarification on performance standards versus methods to reach performance standards, and a change in the method selected for remediation of vernal pools. Regarding vernal pools, the remedy now involves sediment amendments instead of excavation. This newer approach consists of mixing in a sediment amendment to try to reduce the bioavailability of PCBs, and it represents a move towards more up-to-date technology. The goal is to reduce the effects of PCBs without excavating them. The revision applies only to a small subset of the affected area and the vast majority of the remedy still consists of dredging and removal. Comments and questions in the discussion period stressed community-members’ opposition to on-site dumping and explored the feasibility of bio-remediation. Participants’ comments and questions are paraphrased below. EPA responses are in italics:

• Who is the EPA decision-maker and what is their phone number? His name is Carl

Dierker, EPA’s Regional Counsel in Boston; I don’t have his phone number. • Can we lobby the regional counsel who is ruling on the dispute, Carl Dierker, directly?

Under the consent decree, there is no provision regarding individual lobbying of the EPA decision-maker, so I do not have information on that. He is currently reviewing our briefs.

• Is it correct that EPA’s plan does not include any proposed dumpsites in Massachusetts? Yes. The plan is very clear that disposal is to take place in an offsite licensed facility. Right now there are no licensed facilities in Massachusetts.

• Is it correct that GE has stated that it wants onsite local disposal, and now we are waiting for Carl Dierker to decide between the parties’ positions? Yes. One of GE’s disputes was that GE disputed EPA’s selection of offsite disposal.

• I live 100 yards from a proposed dumpsite and I would like to contact Carl Dierker. How can I reach him? He works in EPA’s Boston office and his email address is [email protected].

• It is great to hear that EPA has recommended no dumpsites in the Berkshires. This should not even be an option. It is like taking cancer out of the liver and putting it in the pancreas. For GE, it is all about money. I want to do anything I can to help EPA’s recommendation come to pass.

mailto:[email protected]


• How long has Carl Dierker been reviewing the briefs? GE’s last brief was submitted on March 15th. Mr. Dierker has been working on this since then. There is a lot of information to review.

• Has Mr. Dierker been in communication with lawmakers in this area, and is there a list of the position of local lawmakers? I do not know. Mr. Dierker is making a legal determination, not a political one.

• EPA should not be merely recommending outcomes. EPA is more powerful than GE, and should mandate whatever outcome is in the best interests of the citizens it protects. If I used the term “recommendation,” that is not correct and I apologize. EPA issued its plan. GE has the right to dispute resolution under the consent decree, and they invoked it. They have challenged the permit but we stand by it, and have explained our position [in our brief to responding to GE’s dispute]. It is now up to the dispute resolution official.

• We just moved from New York to get away from a toxic environment. I am guessing GE does not want to set a precedent by capitulating in this dispute, but the community here is never going to let GE dump cancer-causing chemicals in our backyard. Over the long-term, no one will move here, the people who live here will leave, and our healthcare costs will rise.

• If we did not have EPA with us in this struggle we would be in a lot of trouble. EPA wrote an amazing brief defending its permit.

• Why has the number of cubic yards of excavated sediment been reduced under EPA’s plan? It has not been reduced significantly from EPA’s proposed cleanup plan (aka Draft RCRA Permit), issued in 2014. The only reduction since the 2014 draft permit is that, for 5,000 out of 990,000 cubic yards, EPA is proposing to treat vernal pools with carbon to reduce the toxicity of the PCBs so they do not harm amphibians. The theory is the carbon absorbs the PCBs so they do not become bio-available.

• GE’s position is that it wants to stop the cleanup. GE has been found guilty but it is trying to decide its own punishment. GE made people sick, ruined the environment, and is continuing to act in a criminal manner. They are going to cut as many corners as they can. I will stand with EPA, the work it has been doing, and the information it has gathered. EPA is responsible for telling GE that it needs to follow the law.

• I have five questions on bio-remediation. 1) Does it work? 2) What are the costs? 3) Why not try it on a patch of the river? 4) Is it legal to change the plan now to incorporate bio-remediation? 5) Can we get a TAG to do an experiment to see if bio-remediation works? People have been working on bio-remediation for 20-30 years. It involves trying to change the PCB molecule so it degrades. It has not been very successful in flowing rivers. There have been experiments in soil, and it can work well in a petri dish, but it has not been successful on a large scale. GE experimented with bio-remediation in the late 1990s, and it can be very expensive. A reason not to try it is that it has not been fully


effective yet. EPA’s choice was between doing nothing or proceeding with a remedy, given the technology currently available. EPA decided to proceed, in part because having a plan in place will give us more leverage. The permit includes adaptive management, so we can include bio-remediation if it is shown to work well in the future. If something more effective and efficient emerges, we can use it.

• With respect to the TAG grant, HRI would need $500,000 to $1 million conduct a pilot test. There is also a company that wants to do a test for free. Bio-remediation is not as promising as people seem to think. It would still require dredging, and it would still involve spreading out the sediment in the flood plain [and then applying the biological agent]. It is not as simple as mixing in a few bugs and waiting for the PCBs to go away. However, if it were possible to do tests in the river in situ, that might be worth exploring.

• If a new, promising method emerges, who would drive the decision to try it and what role would GE play? EPA would likely take the lead in pushing the new method, and it would do so if it felt like new method would work. If GE were to discover a more cost-effective method, they would likely also push for it.

• Could GE invoke dispute resolution if EPA pushes for a new approach? There is a mechanism in the Consent Decree that allows GE to dispute whatever EPA determines and orders GE to do. The outcome would depend on who wins in the dispute resolution process.

• If it is not possible to treat the PCBs in situ using bio-remediation, EPA should still use it after taking the contaminants out of the river. That would reduce the toxicity of the waste.

• Biopath Solutions has conducted bench scale testing and reduced PCBs by 64-87% in 10 weeks. Bio-remediation could work. Simply because a company claims it conducted a test that caused a specific reduction does not make it a fact.

• During the four years before dredging starts, GE should be required to spend $2 million to do testing. This is what the community wants, and it might greatly diminish the final amount of waste. It’s what the community clearly wants.

• I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism because I grew up near PCBs. I will be living with it the rest of my life. Why are we going to allow PCBs to remain in the river? EPA’s goal is to control the sources releasing PCBs that impact human health and the environment. We have a plan that we think will clean up the river as effectively as anything we have seen.

Due to the significant number of questions and comments, Mr. Tagliaferro agreed to remain after the meeting to continue answering questions and discussing with meeting attendees.


Status of Restoration Projects Under the Natural Resource Damages (NRD) Program Molly Sperduto from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented on restoration projects along the Housatonic River in Connecticut. Slides from Ms. Sperduto’s presentation are available on EPA’s website at https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/588640. Ms. Sperduto explained that in addition to cleanup, the law provides for payment of compensation for impacts to the environment. The collection and expenditure of this compensation is overseen by the Natural Resource Trustees, a group of state and federal agency representatives who serve as trustees for the impacted natural resource. In this case, Connecticut and Massachusetts each received approximately $7.5 million in compensation from GE. In Connecticut, the trustees prepared a restoration plan, sought input and buy-in from the public, and then began implementing the plan. In 2009, the trustees identified 27 restoration projects for funding, and in 2013 they identified another seven. The projects fall under three broad categories: aquatic natural resources, riparian or floodplain resources, and recreational uses. To date, 13 projects have been completed, seven projects are nearing completion, nine projects are currently being actively implemented, two projects are under development, and three projects were deemed infeasible. The projects are distributed throughout the Connecticut portion of the watershed, in 18 different Connecticut communities. The communities have been heavily involved from the beginning. In many cases the communities brought the projects to the trustees, and communities have helped to implement them. Ms. Sperduto presented photos and details on a number of completed and ongoing restoration projects in Connecticut. These photos and details can be seen in her presentation slides, available online. The discussion period focused on the connection between restoration projects and the cleanup, and potential restoration projects that are in need of additional funding. Participants’ comments and questions are paraphrased below. Responses from Ms. Sperduto are indicated in italics:

• The CCC meetings are not the right place for this presentation. Can we have a separate public meeting where we have more of a chance to engage and ask questions? Yes, we can do that.

• I worked for many years at a nonprofit implementing a number of these restoration projects on the Housatonic. I am concerned about how the restoration work connects to



the cleanup. How does it make sense to restore an area that we are leaving contaminated? Similarly, for those areas where the habitat has flourished, how will we prevent the dredging and other cleanup work from stirring up the PCBs and creating additional environmental damage? Typically, we determine the remedy before we move forward with compensation and restoration. In this case it did not work that way. However, when we designed the restoration projects, we thought about remedies that might occur and how we could ensure that they have a lasting benefit. For example, we protected lands along the Housatonic so that those habitats will not be developed.

• The community should stop focusing on bioremediation. I have been involved with a lot of bioremediation projects, and it is not viable at this time. It would take an unbelievable number years and injections of nutrients to build up the bacteria necessary to have an impact. [Comment made by Federal Trustee]

• The Town of Watertown proposed a good project involving dam removal to restore a flood plain habitat and restore a section of an impaired water body, but there was not enough money to fund it. Is there an opportunity for more money and can you keep us in mind? There is some funding remaining but it is being directed at projects that have cost overruns. However, that project is one that we have on the list and it is good that you brought it up.

• Oakville has contract with Princeton Hydro. We have no outside funding, but we are under order to armor a dam. We are interested in finding funding. We can connect after the meeting.

• I am from Salisbury, where there are a number of ongoing projects. I am interested in how the remediation would fit into the Wild and Scenic designation.

• I am from Pittsfield, and I grew up in a residential property contaminated by GE. It is wonderful to protect and restore the natural habitat, but those efforts are small compared to what GE did to destroy the river, and cannot be an excuse for GE to avoid cleaning it up. GE should get all the PCBs out of the river, and make sure they are not behind dams or abutments. At some point people should be able to fish and eat from the river.

• The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) pushed to weaken the cleanup. At a public meeting about four years ago, a biologist from Mass DEP said that the status of the fish in the Housatonic is acceptable because the fish population is stable, even though the fish are contaminated. Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agree with this perspective? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a comment on record with EPA regarding the health of the fish in the river. But you have to read our comments. .


Fish Consumption Advisories in Connecticut Susan Peterson and Mike Humphreys from the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP), and Sharee Rusnak from the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH), presented on the status of fish consumption advisories in Connecticut. Slides from their presentation are available on EPA’s website at https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/590559. Ms. Rusnak began the presentation by discussing the Connecticut fish consumption advisory and the science behind it. She noted that the emphasis of the guidance in Connecticut is to protect human health by advising people on how to consume fish safely. Fish are important sources of protein, especially for certain subsistence groups, but they can also be unsafe to eat. Mercury and PCBs are the key contaminants of concern, and they are present in some fish — including some store-bought fish — at unsafe levels. DPH uses human and animal studies to determine the advisory levels for these contaminants. It has issued statewide freshwater consumption advice, and advice specific to the Housatonic River. It periodically receives sampling data from GE on PCB levels in the Housatonic, and updates its advice accordingly. Ms. Rusnak showed an image of the recreational fish brochure describing DPH’s consumption advice. Next, Mr. Humphreys discussed posting of fish consumption advisory signs in Connecticut. Mr. Humphreys emphasized that signage is just one method for communicating with anglers. There is also a website, brochures, and a guide that anglers receive with their license, all of which contain information on safe fish consumption. There are also many face-to-face interactions with fisheries agents conducting surveys, law enforcement officers, and others, which are used as opportunities for outreach on safe fish consumption. Mr. Humphreys showed a slide depicting an example of a fish advisory sign, noting that it includes information on safe fish consumption levels, and a phone number for obtaining more information. Signs are posted on the Housatonic in Connecticut in six languages — English, Spanish, and four Asian languages — at 25 boat launches and parks on the lower three impoundments of the river, and in English and Spanish at 117 access points on the river’s upper 50 miles within the state. At boat launches, DEEP generally erects a signboard, and at free flowing river access points the agency generally posts a sign on a tree. DEEP has received positive feedback on the effectiveness of its signage and outreach from conservation officers and angler surveys. The agency compiled records from 2011 to 2014 on all the activity of conservation officers on the river and found that there are very few people harvesting fish for consumption.



DEEP has also identified some considerations for future sign posting. The agency believes that the sign needs updating, and would like to generate a new design that is less complicated while still being accurate. For example, the agency has discussed using universal symbols rather than posting in six different languages. The question and answer session focused on the adequacy of signage in Connecticut, and the potential PCB exposure of anglers and others in the state. Responses from DEEP and DPH are in italics, and the institutional affiliation of the respondent is noted:

• It should not have taken 15 years to get the river re-signed. DEEP refuses to re-sign in the trout management area because it says anglers are catching fish and letting them go. There are contaminated fish in the system and people are eating them. DEEP has published two studies showing that there are subsistence anglers in the system that are not educated on consuming contaminated fish. In addition, there should be signs in Asian languages in the northern portion of the river. DEEP is not testing fish, and they have no idea of the amount of contaminants in the water column, sediment, or fish tissue. The DPH fish handout is very difficult to understand and needs to be replaced. We have been talking about these issues for 15 years, but these improvements still have not been made. DEEP response: We have accomplished a lot. The river has been signed. We have a slightly complicated message because we allow some fish consumption, but limit it. It is different in Massachusetts because the contamination levels are different there. We are revising our materials but it takes time and effort. Fish are being tested by GE and our materials are being updated accordingly. In addition, we do post signs within the trout management areas at all access points. We cannot post at every place along the river for various reasons. For example, we need permission to post on private property. In addition, we have detailed feedback and data on angler awareness of contamination. In the 2013 angler survey, for example, we talked to almost everybody fishing in the river, and the data shows that nearly all of them are aware of the health advisory.

• There was recent press about a man — an immigrant from Africa — who was arrested for illegally fishing 38 striped bass. The fish were seized and were found to be sexually confused as a result of endocrine disruptors like PCBs. DEEP response (question): Did that incident take place on the Housatonic River? Public response: No, it did not.

• Environmental Conservation Officers tell us that there are large numbers of subsistence anglers in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic. The Officers do not arrest them because they are bringing food home to their families. They need better education. The Connecticut portion of the Housatonic is highly contaminated, and is not going to be


cleaned up. The contamination does not stop at the border, and the fish are not safe to eat.

• Is the GE sampling program in Connecticut still in force? DPH response: We get fish sampling data from GE every two years. Although the program is no longer mandated under a Cooperative Agreement (between CT DEEP and GE), GE is still paying for sampling and we are still getting the data. DEEP response: GE pays for an independent laboratory to test the fish. It is a reputable, nationally recognized lab.

• Is the lab funded by GE? DEEP response: No. • I think it is important to be careful about the term “independent lab.” Corporations have

manipulated many labs in the past. • When DEEP conducted its angler survey, how many non-English speakers did it speak

to? DEEP response: The primary non-English language we encountered was Spanish. We had field agents who spoke Spanish and handouts in Spanish.

• We have been having the same conversation on fish consumption for 15 years. The key issue is that both Connecticut and Massachusetts need to put pressure on GE to do the necessary remediation.

• It would be simpler and wiser just to tell people not to eat the fish because it is too risky. I speak with people in the Schaghticoke reservation. Although they used to survive through subsistence hunting and fishing, they no longer eat the wildlife at all. We should trust their wisdom.

• Massachusetts had a program through which sportsmen could be tested if they were concerned about their own PCB levels. Does Connecticut provide similar access to testing? DPH response: No we do not have funding for testing. The value of testing information is limited, because it may be difficult to know where the contaminated fish came from. For people interested in testing, there are options at environmental clinics, like at Yale University.

• Is there any monitoring of the exposure levels of subsistence communities? DEEP response: Not that I am aware of. However, it may not be appropriate to use the term “subsistence” in Connecticut. Our surveys ask people how many of their meals are from fresh caught fish in a year, and the answers on the high end are around 24. That is not subsistence.

• People should be concerned about their pets being exposed to PCBs, as well as stray dogs and cats.

• It does not make sense for Connecticut to stock fish that cannot be eaten. It is like giving candy to a child and saying you can look but not eat. The state has budget issues and should be spending money on cleaning the river, not stocking it. DEEP response: People enjoy fishing and then letting the fish go.


Duck Consumption Advisories in Connecticut Rick Jacobson from Connecticut DEEP provided information on Connecticut’s approach towards advising citizens on duck consumption. Mr. Jacobson began by noting that the same contamination issues that apply to fish consumption also apply to waterfowl. However, while there is institutional funding for fish testing and analysis, there is no such funding for ducks. As a result, there is little or no data on contaminant levels in ducks. Despite the lack of data, Connecticut has developed consumption advisories for duck. Different duck species tend to have different levels of contamination. Mergansers are most likely to develop high levels of PCBs, while mallards, wood ducks, and Canada geese are less likely. DEEP’s advisories suggest limiting consumption, and avoiding eating the skin or fat or using the drippings for gravy. Pregnant women and infants are most susceptible to PCBs. Mr. Jacobson concluded by noting that his office would welcome information on potential funding sources to have duck sampled analyzed, so they can develop more targeted messages. Participants’ comments and questions are paraphrased below, and Mr. Jacobson’s response is indicated in italics:

• I have not seen a duck advisory sign in Connecticut. The population of duck hunters is much smaller than the population of fish hunters. It is only about 2000 individuals, and only a small fraction of them are taking fowl on the Housatonic watershed. We know this population and communicate with them regularly.

• There is a perception that communicating about duck consumption limits is unimportant. However, I knew someone who decided to live off the land adjacent to the river. He ate only what he grew or hunted, and ducks were the primary source of his calories. He died within four months of starting to live this way because his thyroid stopped working. It is just as important to communicate about ducks as it is for fish.

Open Comment and Q&A Period Meeting attendees made the following comments:

• I recently took a month-long canoe trip across Massachusetts to bring attention to the importance of clean water in the state. My family has a multi-generational connection to the Berkshires. I do not believe the current cleanup proposals will work. My father wrote a book titled “The Beaver,” and since then I have continued the family interest in beavers. When exploring the study area by canoe and flying overhead in a plane, I saw evidence of many beavers in the area, and became concerned that beavers had not been factored into the cleanup plan. I reached out to various agencies about their data, and none of them had conducted studies on beavers in the area. The Commissioner of


Connecticut DEEP sent me an email suggesting that there was no evidence of beavers in the tributaries of the study area. Any individual who is familiar with the area would know that it contains many beavers. The presence of beavers results in flooding, which means the core areas will be sources of PCBs, not sinks. The agencies only measured PCB levels in low flood conditions, even though PCBs work their way out of the core areas during hard rain events. State agencies may be intentionally hiding these flooding issues within the data.

• Three months ago my wife and I bought our very first home in this area, near the Rising Pond paper mill. We moved here with our two children to find a new life. Our house is 1.5 miles from the proposed dump. I know EPA staff are saying the agency is not in favor of this dump, but I’d like them to ask themselves what they would do if this were their new home, and they had a ten-year-old and a seven-year-old. When they consider any backroom deals with GE, they should remember that we are talking about human lives. When and if that waste dump is built here, I am going to remember the EPA staff in this room who said it would not happen. I am really counting on the EPA.

• When I was kid I was drawn to lakes and streams. I grew to love rivers even more as I got older, and became captivated by Housatonic River when I moved here. I spent hours wading in the river, and even went swimming a few times. At the time, I didn’t know about PCB pollution or the extent of the contamination. As I learned more about the river, I stopped wading in it and got scared, but I still loved the river and made my home here. The river is an important thread sewing our communities together. It would be a profound injustice to build toxic waste dumps in the heart of our community. Our community has already suffered from a polluted river for decades. EPA has a great responsibility to protect us from pollution and from companies like GE that try to circumvent the law. I am grateful to EPA for the work it has done, but it must do the right thing moving forward. PCBs must be removed to landfills far away from this community until such time as the technology exists to restore the area completely.

• I came to this meeting after my workday, because this issue is so important to me. As a physician, I have seen firsthand what PCBs have done to our communities and our country. My carpenter’s son died of PCB poisoning. My family came here with the hope of a better life and freedom. Berkshire County derives 426 million in tourist dollars a year because it is a clean safe place. If toxic waste dumps are put in Housatonic and Lee, we will see a drop in tourism, and most importantly we will lose our sense of safety. The water in Lenox will be further contaminated. I come from a generation that has lost faith in government because of how it has given corporations slaps on wrist. I am begging EPA not to make a decision that will destroy our communities and lives.

• EPA and GE are negotiating. EPA has said, “We don’t support the dumps,” but they are still negotiating. There is a danger of regulatory capture. EPA needs to push GE even if


GE staff are just doing their jobs, and even if it’s uncomfortable. If GE’s revenue over 5 years were $100 dollars, the cost of cleaning PCBs would be 4 cents. The incidence of cancer in this area is very high. If EPA does not force GE to do the right thing, we will get 1,000 people to stand up and protest.

• Regarding the potential of bioremediation, we should wait to see if the technology emerges. We have already been waiting 30 years for the cleanup, so a few more years is unimportant. EPA should be telling companies that they can be heroes by investing in technology to address PCBs. EPA should insist on better solutions. Leaving PCBs is not a solution, dumping them on our banks is not as solution, and dumping them on someone else’s land is not a solution. If the other side is pushing hard, EPA needs to push hard back. EPA is representing people’s health. We expect EPA to do the job on our behalf, not on GE’s behalf.

• People have come to me in my role as state representative and told me there is a company willing to do a free experiment on PCB bioremediation. Maybe it has potential, and maybe EPA could do it simultaneously with dredging.

Meetings attendees also asked the following questions. EPA responses are in italics:

• Why has EPA not pursued bioremediation with the free experiment that the company is offering? A company named Biotech Restorations came to EPA three years ago with a quasi-proposal. We asked them to provide a Quality Assurance Project Plan. They gave us a draft, and we sent it to EPA Headquarters and provided them with comments. We told them what they would need to do to demonstrate that their technology works. We asked that they show us their plan, their methods, and how they would prove that PCBs were destroyed as opposed to being diluted or going into the air. They never got back to us. In addition, half of their plan had EPA contractors doing the work.

• How many times did you speak with this bioremediation company? They gave us a plan. We provided comments and had conference call with their president. Then they never got back to us.

• Could EPA reach out to them? I think burden is on them to reach out to us. • What is the timeline for the EPA remedy? After a decision is made on the current

dispute, we hope to get the final permit out by the end of September. We will probably release our final decision about two to three months after Carl Dierker makes his decision. However, stakeholders can appeal our final decision, resulting in an Environmental Appeals Board process. The average Environmental Appeals Board process is roughly eight months from start to finish. The next step after that would be federal court.


Jim Murphy from EPA offered some concluding remarks. He commented that it was great to see so many people come to the CCC meeting, including many younger people. He noted that EPA has heard from them that people are very concerned about the process. Outreach for this meeting was very successful, and participants should consider adding themselves to the email distribution list for information on future meetings and for information on key issues like when a decision is announced in the dispute resolution process. However, Carl Dierker will not be taking official comments, and needs to make a decision based on what is in the record. Ms. Judy Herkimer commented that it was insufficient to have one CCC meeting in Connecticut per year. Mr. Tushar Kansal noted that if participants put their name and email address on the signup sheet, they will be added to the distribution list. He then brought the meeting to a close. Action Items For the Connecticut Natural Resource Trustees:

• Host a separate public meeting on the Natural Resources Damages Program.


EPA Housatonic Remediation, Citizens Coordinating Council April 27, 2016

Name Organization Present

CCC Members Valerie Andersen Housatonic Clean River Coalition Jocelyn Ayer NW CT Council of Governments Thelma Barzottini Citizens for PCB Removal Gene Chague Berkshire League of Sportsmen Barbara Cianfarini Citizens for PCB Removal Jeff Cook Downtown Pittsfield Becky Cushing MA Audubon Shep Evans Housatonic Valley Association Sarah Flynn Housatonic Clean River Coalition Lynn Fowler Housatonic River Commission X Benno Friedman Sheffield Dave Gibbs Citizens for PCB Removal Tim Gray Housatonic River Initiative X Judy Herkimer Housatonic Environmental Action League X Nat Karns Berkshire Regional Planning Commission Charles Kilson Schaghticoke Tribal Nation Andrew Madden MA Dept. for Fish & Wildlife James McGrath City of Pittsfield Rod McLaren General Electric Claire Miller Toxics Action Center Karen Pelto MA Natural Resources Trustees Susan Peterson CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection X Dennis Regan Housatonic Valley Association June Roy Martin Berkshire Chamber of Commerce Paul Shephardson Berkshire Bike Council Andy Silfer General Electric Dean Tagliaferro U.S. EPA X Cory Thurston Pittsfield Economic Development Agency (PEDA) Eleanor Tillinghast Green Berkshire Eva Tor MA Department of Environmental Protection Sherry White Mohican Nation Jane Winn Berkshire Environmental Action Team John Ziegler MA Department of Environmental Protection CCC Alternates and Other EPA Personnel Jerry Burke Berkshire Chamber of Commerce


Charlie Cianfarini Citizens for PCB Removal Audrey Cole HEAL X Tim Conway U.S. EPA X Dave Dickerson U.S. EPA Alison Dixon HVA Lauren L. Gaherty Berkshire Regional Planning Commission Richard Gates General Electric Mark Jester Berkshire County League of Sportsmen Dave Martindale HRI Jim Murphy U.S. EPA X Kelsey O’Neil U.S. EPA Bryan Olson U.S. EPA Tom Potter MA Natural Resources Trustees Marilyn St. Fleur U.S. EPA Gayle Tardif-Raser Mass Audubon Bruce Winn Berkshire Environmental Action Team George S. Wislocki Green Berkshire Process Support Tushar Kansal Consensus Building Institute X Tobias Berkman Consensus Building Institute X

Additional Attendees

Name Organization / Affiliation Robin Ademcewicz CT DEEP Reed Anderson Housatonic/Great Barrington Leila Barody Lakeville, MA Tim Barry CT DEEP Chuck Berger Town of Watertown, CT Maria Black Lenox, MA John de Kadt Lee, MA Kiran Dufawn Great Barrington, MA Ruth Epstein Rep Am Frances Fabiani Pinshop Pond Dam - Watertown, CT Maurice Fabiani Watertown, CT Ken Finkelstein NOAA Steve Gephard CT DEEP Karen Hennessy Alford, MA Kim Herkimer HRI Mike Humphreys CT DEEP Traci Iott CT DEEP Rick Jacobson CT DEEP


Michael Jastremski Housatonic Valley Association Kathy Kessler Great Barrington, MA Jesse Klingebiel Housatonic, MA Diane Miller Salisbury, CT Robert Miller New Hartford, CT Sage Radachowsky City of Boston, MA Sharee Rusnak CT DPH Heidi Skye Housatonic, MA Molly Sperdudo USFWS Dan Stern Lenox, MA Danielle Stern Lenox, MA Amy Warner Town of Monterey, MA Stacie Weiner Salisbury, CT Chris Windram Housatonic, MA

Documents

FINAL MEETING SUMMARY OF EPA HOUSATONIC RIVER … · Mr. Tushar Kansal, Citizens Coordinating Council facilitator from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), introduced himself and