U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration c/o EPA Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (HIO) 5 Post Office Square, OSRR-07-1 Boston, MA 02109 26 May 2011 Mr. Bob Cianciarulo U.S. EPA Office of Site Remediation and Rest. 5 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Dear Bob: Below is a nearly identical copy of the 20 December 2010 version of my Revised Corrective Measure Study Report that I sent to Susan Svirsky. Please pass this on to the EPA National Remedy Review Board. NOAA’s interest in this site since settlement of the Natural Resources damages is modest, nevertheless a few comments are provided below mostly general in nature with an attempt to find a final remedy compromise between EPA and GE. Concerning the Addendum: Given that the second paragraph of the Introduction states that “GE has a fundamental disagreement with EPA regarding whether exposure to PCBs at environmental levels causes adverse effects on human health and the environment” it is immediate to the reader that GE subscribes to a different set of peer-reviewed literature and furthermore has ignored past remedial measures in the US. Nevertheless, I did find their discussion concerning the benthos and fish IMPGs technically fair but find that the GE assumptions move to far afield from the precautionary principal. For example, GE states that their higher IMPGs for the benthic invertebrates are more scientifically sound that those of EPA. But it is EPA’s calculation of 3-10 mg/kg that is better supported by past work in this field. Nevertheless, rather than pounding their chest that their calculations are better, an attempt to compromise with EPA likely would result in a sediment concentration amenable to both parties (7-10 mg/kg that overlaps both GE and EPA’s concentration range?). Similarly, concerning Fish Protection on Page 5, both EPA and GE make use of assumptions due to the uncertainty inherent in this two phase study. I prefer the more conservative approach advanced by EPA but some compromise – although closer to EPA’s fish tissue concentration – by both parties could resolve this disagreement. For example lowering the number of meals from 55 to 14 for human health impacts from fish tissue exposure. Concerning the Revised Corrective Measures Study: Given NOAA’s very indirect natural resource trustee concerns at this site, I thought it best not to debate Section 2 (Description of Evaluation Criteria) or address the issues concerning the model (Section 3.2) or remediation impacts and the complexity of restoration (Section 5). The regulators and other stakeholders with more direct and local interests certainly will cover this. Rather I thought it best to provide an opinion that Sediment/Floodplain Alternative #3 is the best alternative for reaching consensus. This remedy provides the most river and floodplain habitat improvement for the least amount of cost given the relatively limited dredging and capping. Of note, this is the alternative highlighted by GE during their initial CMS presentation in Pittsfield in March 2008. Although not a complete cleanup of the “Rest or River” this remedy goes a long way in improving the general health of the river ecosystem. That because most of the PCB mass is removed or covered. Most importantly, this remedy reaches well into the 90th percentile for decreasing PCB loading, considerably higher than its closest analogue SED 10/FP 3 yet much less expensive than any of the more comprehensive remedial measures. As stated in the Executive Summary on Page 21: The model results indicate that, under SED 10, the mass of PCBs passing both Woods Pond and Rising Pond Dams would decrease by 62% relative to current levels, while the PCB mass transported to the Reach 5/6 floodplain would decrease by 68%. Under SED 3, the modeled total decrease in these three PCB loads (i.e., mass transport) would be 94%, 87%, and 97%, respectively. For alternatives greater than SED 3, the modeled reductions in all three loads level off, and are generally greater than 95%, achieving little additional reduction. Similarly, remedy SED 3/FP 3 potentially reduce PCB concentrations in the fish fillets by as high as 100%, considerably higher than the 50-80% reduction when using SED 10/FP 9. GE spends much time promoting SED 10/FP 9 explaining that this option does not result in the substantial and widespread long-term, and in some cases permanent, adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the river that they claim will occur using any of the remedies encompassing SED 3/FP 3 thorough SED 9/ FP 8. However, when comparing SED 3/FP 3 with SED 10/FP 9, Table ES-1 through ES-5 show that the former removes less cubic yardage despite complete cleanup of highly contaminated zone 5A and the bank soil. Granted thin layer capping of Woods Pond and part of Zone 5C only enhances the SED 3/FP 3 remedy but the capping is likely as effective as the partial removal of the Woods Pond sediment used in SED 10, and thereby eliminates the dredging (of Wood Pond) that GE has frequently railed against. Under the SED 3/FP 3 cleanup plan, it will take ten years for completion, not very distant from the 5 year estimate for SED 10/ FP 9. Other more invasive remedies take more time for construction complete - up to 51 years for SED-8. Nevertheless, it will take 20 years for the CT fish to reach a concentration that results in unrestricted fishing. Under all scenarios, the MA fish never do in the 50 year time period modeled. Given the text above, I trust that EPA and GE can reach a consensus concerning the IMPGs and the selected remedy. Compromise must be made by both parties and I believe that SED 3/FP 3 may be the remedy that allows both sides to meet the demands of environmental cleanup without unmanageable habitat destruction, both while keeping costs reasonable. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kenneth Finkelstein, Ph.D CC: Bob Cianciarulo (EPA) Ken Munney (USF&WS) J~ MassAudubon Protectifr.J tlt& Nai:un ofMMsaclmoetts June 22, 2011 EPA National Remedy Review Board c/o Bob Cianciarulo EPA New England 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR-07-1) Boston, MA 02109-3912 Dear Mr. Cianciarulo: On behalf of the Massachusetts Audubon Society I submit the following comments rega rding the proposed remediation of PCB contamination in the Housatonic - Rest of River area. As the seco nd largest landowner within the Primary Study Area (PSA) we have appreciated the extensive out reach and public engagement process conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) and the thoughtful manner in w hich EPA is approaching this remediation. The following is a summary of the key points raised in our comments: 1. Mass Audubon ha s a direct and substa ntial interest in the proposed cleanup both as the second-largest affected landow ner within the PSA and as a conservation organization whose mission is protecting the nature of Massachusetts for people and for wildlife. Mass Audubon strongly supports the remediation of the Housatonic River in order to reduce PCB concentrations to acceptable levels for humans and wildlife. Mass Audubon does not support monitored natural recovery for Rest of River as an acceptable method of addressing the contamination of the River. We also beli eve that GE should be required to compensate affected landow ners for the short- and long-term harm to public recreational use of lands and waters that will be affected by the remed iation as well as for any direct financial impacts which will result. 2. To date, there ha s been insufficient information prese nted through the public review process rega rding the proposed approach to restoration of remediated areas. Given the hi gh diversity and ecological sensitivity of the habitats along the Housa tonic River and its floodplain, GE must be held to appropriately high standards for this remediation, which should begin with avoidance and minimization of adverse impact s to critical habitats. W here active remediation is necessary, EPA must require functional restoration of all critical habitats affected by remediation activit ies. This requires the establishment of restoration goals, a plan to achieve these goals, and a commitment to pre- and post-remediation monitoring and enhancement as needed until those goals are 208 South Great Road · Lincoln. Massachusetts 0 1773 . tel 781 .259.9500 • fax 781 .259.8899 • IN'NW.massaudubon.org 2 met. We believe that the success of th is project w ill ultimately be measured both by the amount of PCBs removed from the Housatonic River system and by the success of habitat restoration measures. 3. Permanent armoring of the riverbank in Reach 5 will have long term sign ificant and unacceptable impacts on critical habitat features such as wildlife dens, nesting sites, and mature trees, and will fundamentally alter the eco logica l functioning of the riverine/floodplain system. This is one of the most challenging aspects of this remediation. In sofar as feasible, natural ri verin e geomorphologica l processes must be allowed to continue along the river. 4. EPA should require long-term restoration monitoring on a timescale appropriate to the type of habitat being restored and require that appropriate financial and institutional mechanisms (e.g. escrow or other gua ranteed funds) are in place to ensure that all restoration activities are fully implemented and monitored until restoration goals are ach ieved . 5. Adaptive management principles should be applied to the Housatonic River remediation, w ith flexibility to adjust c1ean up and restoration methods over time based on experience and evolving techniques.