Housatonic River—“Rest of River” Remediation Housatonic River Status Report Public Meeting New Milford High School, New Milford CT Tuesday, June 12, 2012 Welcome Betsey Wingfield, CT DEEP, and Jim Murphy, US EPA, welcomed members of the public to the Housatonic River Status Report meeting. Jim reviewed the meeting objectives, agenda, and ground rules, and introduced staff members from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and MA Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Mr. Murphy explained that the Status Report outlines an approach to the proposed Rest of River plan, not the plan itself; the plan should be released in the summer, and there will be a formal public comment period after its release. The Status Report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/region1/ge/index.html. Ms. Wingfield highlighted that the Housatonic River is a very important resource to the people of CT and that, although the bulk of the remediation work will likely be conducted in MA, it will have significant impacts o the quality of life of CT residents. Presentation of Status Report by U.S. EPA Susan Svirsky, Project Manager for the Rest of River remediation for the US EPA, presented the Status Report. The Status Report is the result of a dialogue between EPA and state agencies from Connecticut and Massachusetts that has been underway for the past several months. About 20 agency representatives worked to reconcile perspectives and address the complex issues involved in the Rest of River remediation. The EPA has not yet made any remedy decisions, but rather has worked with the states to outline a potential approach to a proposed plan; as the plan itself is developed, additional details will be incorporated and additional data and information will be sought as necessary. All of the agencies involved are committed to continuing the dialogue throughout the Rest of River process. Significant remediation work has been done at the top mile and half, and has held up well, including in the face of Tropical Storm Irene. The Rest of River area begins at Reach and ends at Long Island Sound. The overall goal is to pursue Rest of River remedy that protects human health by addressing risks posed by PCBs while also protecting and restoring the river’s unique, high value ecology. In order to balance human health and ecological considerations, targeted remediation approaches will be used based o the conditions o the ground. Adaptive management will be used to ensure that remedy approaches strike this balance appropriately. Remediation components include river and bank sediment; impoundments; and floodplains, vernal pools, and backwaters; each of these poses different challenges. Ms. Svirsky presented the general approach to each of these components outlined in the Status Report, noting that the specific details of 1 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary each approach are not yet determined. She also reviewed additional considerations associated with the cleanup: River an Bank Sediment – Much of this remediation work will be required in reaches 5A and 5C, where human health is a particular risk; in those areas, a sediment removal and capping strategy will be used, similar to what was done in the first mile and a half. In reach 5B, where there is less of a risk to human health, only hot spots will be addressed. Bank work is only anticipated in reach 5A, and in hot spots in 5B, though this will be informed by additional data. Bank erosion is a challenging issue – o the one hand, erosion can cause reentry of PCBs from banks to the river; on the other hand, installing hard shorelines such as riprap can detract from the river’s natural processes. Accordingly, the goal is to minimiZe bank work and to use bioengineering “soft” restoration techniques where possible. Floodplains, Vernal Pools, and River Backwaters – These areas both require significant remediation work and are highly valuable ecologically. Accordingly, the goal is to d careful and targeted remediation, so as to address human health risks without damaging or destroying the overall ecology. The current idea is to utiliZe an excavation and backfill approach. Floodplains have been mapped in detail and characteriZed according to importance, though more data is still needed. Data o individual vernal pools and backwater areas is also needed. Ultimately, GE will need to characteriZe the current status of each of these areas and then careful decisions will need to be made about how to remediate each one. Woods Pond – Woods Pond is a manmade body with the potential to act as an important natural resource if properly reengineered. The goal is to remediate it, likely through an excavation and capping strategy, while simultaneously making it into a better sediment trap and habitat for river species, potentially by deepening it. More data is required to determine the specific approach that should be utiliZed. Downstream Impoundments – There are several dams located downstream from Woods Pond, including the Columbia Mill Dam, Eagle Mills Dam, Willow Mill Dam, Glendale Dam, and Rising Pond Dam. These dams have different conditions and levels of contamination behind them, so various remedy approaches will likely be used. Moreover, in some cases local communities may prefer to remove dams altogether; the agencies recogniZe the importance of working with local communities to link the issues of dam removal and remediation. Overall the dams are considered highly important for the remedy process, particularly since their existence or removal has a great impact on downstream conditions. Connecticut – Contamination levels are much lower in Connecticut than in Massachusetts, so active remediation is not anticipated. Rather, the goal is to conduct active remediation in Massachusetts so that a monitored natural recovery is possible further downstream. One goal is to meet federal standards for fish consumption safety in Connecticut, in collaboration with CT DEEP. Overall, Connecticut is expected to benefit from all of the work done further upstream. Disposal Strategies – The agencies agree that contaminated material must be sent to facilities that are licensed to dispose of PCBs. There are no plans to license such a facility in the Berkshires, so the material will need to leave the region. 2 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary Adaptive Management – The challenges of this cleanup effort will require a multi-year process that is iterative and open to the use of innovative approaches. Moreover, it is important to anticipate the potential impacts of climate change in designing remedies. Accordingly, the agencies are dedicated to implementing an adaptive management approach that ensures the best approaches are being used, and that the effort is working appropriately. State Involvement Moving Forward – The agency co-regulators are committed to maintaining the working relationship that has led to the Status Report, including by sharing information and solving problems jointly. The agencies believe their long-term collaboration is important for the success of the remediation effort. They will build structures, such as strategies for resolving disagreements, to ensure a successful collaborative effort moving forward. Next Steps – After receiving public comments o the Status Report, the next step is to turn it into an actual proposed plan that sets performance goals that GE must achieve. The proposed plan will be subject to a public comment period of at least 45 days. The goal is for the process to be as transparent as possible, and to address the concerns of the entire watershed. Additional Comments from the States Betsey Wingfield, CT DEEP, thanked Ms. Svirsky for her presentation and stated that she would focus her comments on how the remediation would impact Connecticut. Ms. Wingfield noted that, as far back as the consent decree, it was envisioned that active remediation would take place in MA and that remediation in CT would likely consist of monitoring and natural recovery. Nevertheless, the remediation actions in MA will significantly impact the health of the river in CT due to reduced downstream transport of PCBs. Past remediation actions in the Pittsfield portion of the river have already reduced PCB concentrations in fish tissue in CT, but those levels have now plateaued. Further remediation actions in MA will be critical to further reducing downstream transport of PCBs, reducing PCB levels in fish tissue, and reestablishing a healthy river over the long run. The main driver for remediation is the level of PCBs in fish tissue and attendant fish consumption advisories. Currently, there are advisories in effect and these advisories are different for different species of fish and also for different human populations (for example, stricter advisories that allow for lower levels of fish consumption are in effect for children and pregnant women). Having fish consumption advisories in effect is a concern for CT because there are some populations of residents who rely on fish caught from the river for their main source of protein. major area of concern for CT with regards to the remediation is the impoundments (i.e. dams) in MA. The sediment that has accumulated behind the dams is contaminated by PCBs. CT wants to ensure that the sediment is handled and disposed of properly in case changes are made to the impoundments in the future. While the discussions between EPA and the states has been, in part, process of balancing CT’s 3 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary interests with MA’s interests, CT’s long-term goals are to restore the Housatonic to a fishable, swimmable river. Public Comment and Questions Approximately 20 participants attended the Public Meeting and spoke to a wide variety of concerns during the public comment and questions period.