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. Responses from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Massachusetts (MA), and Connecticut (CT) officials are noted, where made, in italics.

• A attendee expressed concern about the large area that will not be remediated according to the approach envisioned in EPA’s Housatonic River Status Report. There is only one chance to remediate the river properly and as many of the PCBs as possible should be removed at this time. Residents deserve a fishable, swimmable river. The commenter read from an EPA fact sheet, highlighting that PCBs are classified as probable cancer-causing agents and that they degrade very slowly, over hundreds of years. The commenter requested that more aggressive remediation measures be taken north of Woods Pond, and that remediation should proceed until only a safe level of PCBs is left behind in the soil, regardless of the depth of contamination. In addition, GE should be made responsible for the dams in the CT section of the river. Furthermore, GE should be responsible for long-term monitoring of the health of the river. • participant stated that fly fishermen on the Housatonic River cannot keep their catch, although many would like to even though in general they support catch-and-release. The commenter expressed particular concern over the resuspension of PCB-contaminated sediment in the water and supports the plan not to actively remediate in the CT portion of the river. He would like to see sediment moved east or west via rail, rather than north and south parallel to the river since much of the track is quite old. • questioner asked whether removing water from the river to mow lawns could introduce PCBs to the lawns. He specifically cited the example of the Century Brass Superfund site in Waterbury as case in which significant quantities of water were removed from the Housatonic. An EPA official responded that PCBs generally adhere to fat in animal tissue an to organic carbon in river sediment and that, therefore, if only water is being removed from the river, it should not present a issue in terms of PCB transport. • commenter asked whether the riverbanks would withstand Category hurricane under the approach envisioned in the preliminary approach. EPA officials noted that hurricanes are categorized by wind speed, but that the banks would be designed to withstand 100-year storm flows. During Hurricane Irene, storm flows were at the highest recorded level since 1938 and the banks withstood the flows very well. With climate change, there will likely be greater variability in the system. For instance, since the Pittsfield-area remediation has been completed, there have been two 100-year flow events. The participant urged officials to use the railroad to remove sediment as the use of truck would require hundreds of thousands of truck trips. • participant asked where the dredged material would be taken and whether another locality would be contaminated by the PCBs. An EPA official responded that GE would decide where to take the material, but that it would have to go to a facility that is appropriately permitted to handle contaminated wastes.

4 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary • commenter stated that he does not trust GE to handle the contaminated sediment properly and that the EPA should specify where the waste is disposed in the remediation plan. An EPA official responded that although GE will propose disposal plan, EPA has to approve it an that EPA would exercise significant oversight over GE in this regard. This commenter also asked whether EPA has learned any lessons from the remediation of the Hudson River that could be applied to the Housatonic remediation. An EPA official responded that learning from that operation would definitely be applied to the Housatonic remediation, although the rivers d have significant differences. • questioner asked whether FirstLight Power Resources and other commercial entities that own dams would be eligible for funding to remediate their impoundments and the sediment behind them. CT official responded that owners of the impoundments, including commercial entities would be eligible for appropriate funding. The questioner also asked whether remediation funds could be applied to a natural sandbar that serves as an impoundment. CT official responded that applicability to a natural sandbar would depend on how the Institutional Controls are structured in the final remediation plan. • participant expressed concern about the poor condition of the rail lines near the Housatonic and asked whether money would be available to improve the condition of the tracks. An EPA official noted that the EPA would make sure that the railroad is safe before contaminated soils are transported. In addition, the remediation plan would need to look at routing an transport could be done via a CSX line that runs east-west. The participant inquired about the safety of using Woods Pond as a catchment area for PCBs from upriver and whether a large storm event or other cause of dam failure could wash PCBs down river. MA official responded that the plan for Woods Pond calls for removing significant quantity of PCBs, after which cap would be placed to contain the remaining PCBs. The cap an condition of the dam would be monitored an maintained by GE, which owns the dam. • commenter thanked the officials for holding the meeting in New Milford and for attempting to engage stakeholders in the southern part of CT. She suggested that residents in this part of the state have not been kept in the loop about the remediation plans and why the process has been delayed. The resident asserted that there are more PCBs in the Housatonic than there are in the Hudson River, but the Status Report indicates that the Housatonic will get a weaker remediation. For some undocumented reason, this commenter stated, MA has complained about EPA’s remediation strategy. Other states are begging EPA to come clean up contaminated areas, whereas MA is trying to water down the remediation. Residents d not understand why MA would want state-listed species to live in an ecosystem that would remain contaminated. Furthermore, MA’s science is confusing. For example, the dredging of Woods Pond has never even been modeled, as far as we know. The commenter noted that Svirsky’s team has done very thorough and credible work over many years and that studies indicate that the risk assessments that the team has produced are damning. The advocacy group with which the commenter is affiliated is the only one that filed suit in federal court to block the consent decree. Fish in the Housatonic are contaminated and PCB levels have plateaued in CT because that’s what happens in low-dose systems like the Great Lakes. The work that the EPA teams have performed in the Pittsfield portion of the river and in remediating a former military facility in Maine is exemplary in remediating and restoring contaminated areas such that healthy, clean species return to the site. The current EPA Status Report is a result of politics, not science, and is the result of MA violating what it signed off o in the consent decree. Finally, the cleanup on the Hudson created an economic engine in certain areas that supports local communities and

5 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary local restaurants and creates jobs, and the same could be done on the Housatonic. This commented asked whether averaging would be used as methodology such that some areas would be left highly contaminated while nearby areas balance out these areas. An EPA official responded that the EPA Status Report is silent about the use of averaging, but that averaging is a method that could be used going forwards. The commenter expressed skepticism that the Sediment remediation strategy predicted much longer period of time would be needed to reach a PCB level such that 14 fish meals per year could be consumed by an adult and that the Sediment strategy, which is likely to be used, predicts a significantly shorter time period. The resident asked what the EPA’s predictions are for reaching 1 mg/kg of PCBs in the sediment. An EPA official responded that the current prediction is that it would take 1 years to reach PCB level that would allow for 14 fish meals per year to be consumed once the remediation is completed. The official explained that the Sediment 9 plan yields a much shorter timeframe to reach this level of fish meals than the Sediment 8 plan because the former envisions much less excavation and more capping than the latter, thereby isolating the PCBs more quickly. The resident asked about the EPA’s interest in alternative remediation technologies to dredging and capping and asserted that BioTech Restorations is interested in spending its own money to conduct a pilot program on the river. An EPA official responded that the EPA is open to alternative approaches but that BioTech Restorations has a approach that requires land farming, which would not be appropriate for the Housatonic ecosystem. Furthermore, EPA has invited BioTech to come and try their technique and has requested a quality-assurance project plan, but that BioTech has not been in contact with EPA in the last eight months. The resident acknowledged that there have been communication difficulties and offered that residents could serve as an intermediary between EPA and BioTech. Finally, the resident stated that dam removal would release PCBs into the water stream and that all dams should stay in place at present. • participant expressed concern that the remediation plan is considering dams and capping as long-term solutions, since these structures do not last forever. Furthermore, more frequent and larger storms are likely to occur with ongoing climate change, and the 100-year flow standard that is being used may not be adequate.

Closing

Mr. Murphy and Ms. Wingfield thanked everyone for attending the meeting and for providing comments.

Adjourn: 8:00 pm

6 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary Appendix: List of Attendees

Name Organization Marc Andreotto HRC Greg Bollod Friends of the Lake Scott Campbell Weston Solutions Audrey Cole HEAL Jan Czeczotka CT DEEP Jim Danaport Jeri DeJong Housatonic Valley Association Lee DeJong Housatonic Valley Association Rich DiNitto The Isoceles Group Lynn Fowler HRC Robert Gambino HRC Judy Herkimer HEAL Kim Herkimer HEAL Tracy Iott CT DEEP Tushar Kansal Consensus Building Institute Dan Kenny Housatonic Fly Fisherman Association George Kiefer HRC Elaine LaBella Housatonic Valley Association Richard Laudenat FirstLight Power Bob McGallah GDI R. McGrath The Isoceles Group Dan McGuiness NW CT Council of Governments Robert Miller The News-Times Marvin Moss Monroe Conservation / Monroe Land Trust Jim Murphy U.S. EPA Susan Peterson CT DEEP Charles Petruccelli Trout Unlimited Marguerite Purnell Sharee Rusnak CT DPH Megan Ruta Housatonic Valley Association Andy Silfer General Electric Gary Snolen FirstLight Power Susan Svirsky U.S. EPA Dean Tagliaferro U.S. EPA W. B. Tingley Housatonic River Commission Ruth Trudeau Wayne Trudeau Rachel Warren Republican-American Marcia Wilkins Sierra Club Betsey Wingfield CT DEEP John Ziegler MA DEP

7 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary 8 Housatonic River Status Report Meeting, New Milford, CT – June 12, 2012 DRAFT Meeting Summary