GE, EPA, the City of Pittsfield, Berkshire County towns bordering the Housatonic and several environmental organizations have agreed to a settlement agreement that sets out goals for the clean up of the Housatonic River and calls for a massive PCB dump not far from Woods Pond. HRI, while a party to negotiations, refused to sign on to the final agreement. Today, like too many yesterdays, we call for a more strident clean up and for the treatment of PCB-contaminated sediments and soil. Treat, Don’t Dump.
For close to four decades a coalition of workers, sportsmen, and environmentalists from Massachusetts and Connecticut have been pressuring General Electric (GE) to clean up its massive PCB contamination of Pittsfield, MA neighborhoods, Silver Lake and the Housatonic River.
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) “Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a mixture of individual chemicals which are no longer produced in the United States, but are still found in the environment. Health effects that have been associated with exposure to PCBs include acne-like skin conditions in adults and neurobehavioral and immunological changes in children. PCBs are known to cause cancer in animals. PCBs have been found in at least 500 of the 1,598 National Priorities List (NPL) sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) …
“Few studies of workers indicate that PCBs were associated with certain kinds of cancer in humans, such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract … The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has concluded that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. PCBs have been classified as probably carcinogenic, and carcinogenic to humans.”
Since its founding almost thirty years ago the Housatonic River Initiative (HRI) has won many battles and lost some. Thanks to HRI’s continuing pressure on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GE has been forced to clean up hundreds of homes, a children’s playground, and many miles of the Housatonic River.
During these many years, HRI has advocated for a fishable, swimmable river and fought for the treatment of toxic PCBs and fought against landfilling. We opposed the 2000 Consent Decree between GE and the Commonwealth and U.S. government even though it called for the clean up of the first two miles of the Housatonic River partially because the agreement called for two massive PCB dumps across from the Allendale Elementary School. We unsuccessfully urged the EPA to honor a most important aspect of the legislation that enables EPA, CERCLA’s Section 9621(b)’s preference for alternative remedial technologies:
“(1) Remedial actions in which treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over remedial actions not involving such treatment. The offsite transport and disposal of hazardous substances or contaminated materials without such treatment should be the least favored alternative remedial action where practicable treatment technologies are available.
Meanwhile HRI negotiated in good faith and ultimately decided not to pursue our court action because we were promised that the EPA would provide pilot projects for a wide variety of innovative remedial technologies to treat PCB-contaminated river sediment and bank soil.
Twenty years later we are still waiting for those real and rigorous pilot projects. The most recent 2020 settlement between GE, the Commonwealth and EPA and several local organizations and towns bordering the river once again grants GE the right to build a massive new PCB landfill in Lee and Lenox Dale. Once again it’s hard not to question EPA’s commitment to a thorough investigation of treatment technologies.
Over the next two decades, HRI engaged in many good faith attempts to create the best possible PCB remediation of the Housatonic River. We attended many meetings, offered detailed criticisms of GE’s proposals. And finally HRI submitted a detailed brief before EPA’s own Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) urging a far more comprehensive cleanup of the river and river banks. We reminded the EAB of our many decades-long advocacy of remedial technologies and presented evidence of the success of a variety of cutting edge technologies.
Here is a copy of HRI’s submission to the EAB:
The EAB dismissed most of our concerns and Region One of the EPA argued that the EAB shouldn’t consider our advocacy of the most promising of remediation technologies, thermal desorption, because we hadn’t specifically mentioned it in the last round of official comments on the 2016 Revised Permit even though we had a decades-long track record holding public workshops about innovative technologies and continuing discussions of thermal desorption ever since the technology was used in the remediation of the PCB contamination of the Rose Property in Lanesboro, MA.
Here is HRI’s answer to the EPA’s response to our EAB brief:
EAB HRI REPLY TO REGION 1 03.24.17
Following the appeals to the EAB, including GE and HRI and other interested parties, the EPA suggested a confidential mediation process. HRI, with many reservations, decided to participate. Here’s the language of the 2020 settlement agreement:
The Parties have been engaged in mediated discussions concerning the 2016 Permit, pursuant to a mediation agreement executed in March 2019 (“Mediation Agreement”). The Parties entered into the Mediation Agreement with the objective of identifying whether there was one negotiated resolution of the permit dispute before the EAB that would result in a protective cleanup that is more comprehensive and faster, that minimizes the disputes and litigation going forward concerning the cleanup, and that is consistent with the overall Consent Decree for the Site.
The Parties have agreed on the following measures to achieve a cleanup that is protective, faster and more comprehensive, while minimizing disruption to affected parties, addressing community impacts, and promoting economic development. This Settlement Agreement is intended to address all disputes between the Parties regarding the 2016 Permit, including those raised in petitions to the EAB. The Parties recognize that the terms of this Settlement Agreement must be approved by each of the five towns making up the Municipal Committee (Great Barrington, Lee, Lenox, Sheffield and Stockbridge) (“the Towns”) . The terms of the Settlement Agreement are not severable or modifiable other than with the consent of the affected Parties.
It is precisely because HRI was convinced that the mediation agreement did not actually result in “a protective cleanup that is more comprehensive and faster” that we couldn’t sign on to it. We couldn’t agree to a cleanup that failed to treat PCB contaminated river sediment and contaminated bank soil and instead relied on creating a massive PCB dump.
Here is their description of the dump or Upland Disposal Facility:
The Upland Disposal Facility shall have a maximum design capacity of 1.3 million cubic yards. The landfill consolidation area shall have a maximum footprint of 20 acres and a maximum elevation of 1,099 feet above mean sea level … [with] a maximum capacity of 1.3 million cubic yards.
GE shall construct the Upland Disposal Facility landfill with a double liner and a leachate collection system and shall cap the Upland Disposal Facility with a low-permeability cap and vegetation. The liners shall have a permeability equal or less than 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec, a minimum thickness of 30 mils and be chemically compatible with PCBs. The bottom liner of the landfill will be installed a minimum of 15 feet above a conservative estimate of the seasonally high groundwater elevation.
As for EPA’s promise of Pilot Projects or the Lack Thereof:
“The EPA will facilitate opportunities for research and testing of innovative treatment and other technologies and approaches for reducing PCB toxicity and/or concentrations in excavated soil and/or sediment before, during, or after disposal in a landfill. These opportunities may include: (1) reviewing recent and new research; (2) identifying opportunities to apply existing and potential future research resources to PCB treatment technologies, through EPA and/or other Federal research programs; and (3) encouraging solicitations for research opportunities for research institutions and/or small businesses to target relevant technologies. The research may focus on soil and sediment removed (or to be removed) from the Housatonic River or similar sites to ensure potential applicability to the permit/selected remedy. GE and EPA will continue to explore current and future technology developments and, where appropriate, will collaborate on on-site technology demonstration efforts and pilot studies, and, consistent with the adaptive management requirements in the Final Permit together, will consider the applicability of promising research at the Housatonic Rest of River site.”
While we continue to advocate for testing a wide range of possible innovative technologies, we now know that there is a one technology that has proved itself successful in a situation similar to ours, thermal desorption. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in cooperation with the government of Vietnam together worked to clean up the large-scale dioxin contamination of the Danang airport.
Here’s how it works: “The Danang Airport Remediation Project uses both thermal treatment and containment remediation approaches. The thermal treatment strategy involves three major steps: building an enclosed, above ground treatment structure; excavating and placing the dioxin-contaminated soil and sediment into the structure; and heating the contaminated soil and sediment to a high temperature (approximately 335ºC) to destroy the dioxin. Following treatment, the soil and sediment is tested by both USAID and MND scientists to ensure it meets the approved GVN treatment goal. The treated material is then cooled, removed from the treatment structure and used as fill material on site to advance the Danang Airport’s expansion plans.”
This is how USAID described how their project evolved from landfilling to treatment: “The “Environmental Remediation of Dioxin Contamination at Danang Airport” Project (hereafter referred to as the Project) is a 10-year (2009-2018), $103.5 million project “to characterize, remove and contain dioxin contaminated soil and sediment from hotspots at Danang Airport …
The Project’s original purpose was to dispose of contaminated soil excavated from the airport into a secure landfill. However, based on the Project’s Environmental Assessment (EA), completed in 2010, USAID and the Government of Vietnam (GVN), through the Ministry of National Defense (MND), decided to treat the dioxin contaminated soil and sediment using In-Pile Thermal Desorption (IPTD) technology. The IPTD process heats soil to 635°F (335°C), causing dioxin compounds to break down into non-toxic components.
“The Project was designed to excavate and treat approximately 73,000 cubic meters (m3) of contaminated soil and sediment identified in the EA. The Project expanded to include excavation, treatment, and containment of additional soil and sediment that was identified during implementation, increasing its funding from $7.35 million to $103.5 million.”
Here’s their response to the critical question: To what degree did the project achieve its purpose of characterizing, removing and containing dioxin contaminated soil and sediment from hotspots at Danang airport?
“The project was a resounding success in treating dioxin contaminated soil and sediments, with resulting post-treatment dioxin levels well below the required limits. However, gaps in planning and testing hindered project performance relating to soil characterization, which in turn led to delays and higher project costs. From the point of view of the higher-level goal of treating dioxin contaminated areas, the project was a success.”
In response to the question of whether thermal desorption was cost effective in comparison to other remedial solutions, AID wrote:
“The Project cost 669 USD per ton to treat the material compared to similar methods which ranged from 337 – 5,205 USD per ton. The Danang project treated roughly 7.8 times more material than did the lowest cost project. Conclusions The project was cost effective, being the third least expensive project examined out of 10 technologies.”
Considering the clear success of Thermal Desorption at the Danang airport, there is no reason why GE shouldn’t pay to permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the Housatonic River PCBs. Again, HRI says treat, don’t dump.
You can read more here: https://www.usaid.gov/vietnam/environmental-remediation
Read the final report of the Danang remediation: pa00tds3 Danang
Read the 2020 Rest of River negotiated settlement agreement: 643538 Settlement Agreement PDF