MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
3:00 P.M.
PRESENT: M. Kaplowitz, Chair; V. Pinto; U. LaMotte;
J. Maisano.
STAFF: C. Ryer, Sec’y.
ALSO PRESENT: William Harrington-Legal Counsel, Nancy Ward, John Haggard (General Electric); Edna Sussman (FCWC); Marion Rose (CWCWC); Chris Walbrecht (Citz. Campg./Env.); Gina D’Agrosa (WC/Plng. Dept.); Hope Corbin (Intern-MK); Bill Randolph (CE’s Ofc.); Katherine McLoughlin (NY/LCV).
DISCUSSION:
The meeting was called to order at 3:11 p.m., by Chair Kaplowitz. The Committee members were introduced, and Chair proceeded with a review of the newly added agenda items. He noted that the items #25-01 (LIS Water Quality Improvement) and #28-01 (EFC Revolving Loan Program), would be discussed in a joint meeting with the Committee on Budget and Appropriations. Upcoming meetings for the month of April were also discussed and reviewed, with emphasis that there will be no meeting scheduled on Tuesday, April 24th. However, the meeting will be held on Thursday, April 26th from 3-5 p.m., at Westchester Community College. Details available at a later date.
Chair Kaplowitz referred to item #9-01, a proposed resolution from the Mayor of Croton-on-Hudson, regarding the need to clean up PCBs in the Hudson. He noted that the correspondence is the prelude to today’s discussion, and that the proposed resolution will be discussed next week, in time for the April 17th EPA deadline for public comment.
Chair introduced today’s guest from the General Electric Corporation. John Haggard, Project Manager, who led the discussion and distributed a map with the targeted location of the PCBs. The focused area is a stretch of river from Troy to Hudson Falls (NY), approximately 40-miles.
MINUTES
TUESDAY, March 27, 2001
PAGE 2
Mr. Haggard continued, explaining that in the 40-mile stretch there is a series of pools created by dams where the sediment and PCB has settled. Giving a little history, he added that PCBs were used at two manufacturing plant sites from the late 1940’s/early 50’s, until 1977, when a ban was issued in the U.S. The PCBs were emitted into the Hudson during the manufacturing operations when the holding canisters were washed and painted, the wash water was disposed of in the river. The PCB texture was denser than water and sank to the bottom of the river, concentrating in the above-referenced area. In 1973, one of the dams was removed, and of the PCB sediment built-up over the years, an estimated 1.5-million cubic yards of sediment eventually washed down-stream to a series of dams and settled in an area known as the Thompson Island Dam/Pool. In 1981, the State made a first attempt for a dredging and landfill project, however, the project was rejected by the EPA and community residents. Some issues of the EPA rejecting dredging were:
• lack of experienced technology;
• concerns of dredging a river and creating
re-suspension;
• concerns of the ecological impact of large-scale dredging in the upper Hudson River; and
• declining levels of PCB in the river, fish and (drinking) water.
EPA is required (by law/every 5-years) to investigate its Superfund projects, and evaluate whether the selected remedy was effective, and in 1990 the reassessment was started. A proposal was issued December 2000, for large-scale dredging of the Hudson River for removal of PCBs. Mr. Haggard added, that the 5-year reassessment has taken ten years, and is still in progress, due to setbacks in research efforts and financial difficulties.
MINUTES
TUESDAY, March 27, 2001
PAGE 3
Mr. Haggard stated that EPA’s analysis on how to control risks, focuses on the issues and concerns regarding the large amounts of consumption of PCBs in fish. He emphasized that the river is safe for swimming, boating, normal recreation, and as a drinking water source (after required treatment). PCB levels have been reduced since the 1970’s and GE’s present concern is how to speed up the recovery and lower the PCB levels in fish by allowing the natural sedimentation process to continue, and stop the active sources of PCBs currently impacting the river. GE also believes that dredging is not going to have a major impact, because it goes after the wrong PCBs for removal – those at a 10-cm depth (not the PCBs that get into fish.) Mr. Haggard continued to explain the dredging risks and its affect on the different types of PCB sediment (i.e., on-shore source, surface, and buried sediment), due to unreliable technology. The buried PCB sediment has the least negative affect, and GE believes massive dredging could be “devastating to river ecosystem”.
Chair Kaplowitz questioned why GE feels technology has not advance enough with new methods, over the last 20 years, to be able to effectively clean up PCBs. Mr. Haggard responded that there are two different methods being used, mechanical (clam shell/bucket) and hydraulic/suction dredging. Both types use a shroud-type mechanism, which captures approximately 95% water and 5% sediment, the shroud theoretically minimizes the amount of sediment that gets away in the river current. He added, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that dredging still re-suspends sediment, even with advanced technology – the act of stirring and cutting always leaves residue behind – models and data analysis show that PCBs below 10-cm depth are not a significant contributor to surface sediments and fish.
MINUTES
TUESDAY, March 27, 2001
PAGE 4
He then briefly explained the process of PCB sediments in the water and how they re-suspend, while using GE’s Hudson River Briefing/Westchester Co. (03/27/01), which had been distributed to the Committee members, and is in the Committee file. In conclusion, Mr. Haggard presented GE’s “source control” method as an alternative to dredging, as it would be a “natural recovery” process. GE claims the “source control” project would prevent PCBs from getting into the Hudson and would speed up the natural recovery of surface sediments and fish while allowing a natural recovery to progress unimpeded by dredging.
William Harrington presented a (1997) Resolution from Dutchess County supporting EPA’s reassessment of PCBs in the Hudson and in favor of potential remedial actions. He offered information referenced in the Sound Science Report to confirm his statement.
The EPA is having a series of public meetings, during this period, and comments for consideration can be submitted (written or orally) to the agency by the EPA’s closing date of April 17th. After the closing date, EPA reviews the submitted materials, to assist with their decision – the next step is to respond to all the submitted comments with a document (responsiveness summary) then follow with the formal decision. Legislator Maisano questioned whether further litigation would follow this process. Gina D’Agrosa responded, noting that under the Superfund law, GE cannot sue EPA because an unfavorable order/response was issued. If there were to be further litigation, it would not come from the County, because of the Superfund law. Ms. D’Agrosa also questioned the effects of PCB removal on the other dams or other projects along the river shoreline. Edna Sussman commented that similar removal had been performed in the Fox River (Wisconsin) successfully (a closely monitored project). Mr. Haggard requested to see the report, which present the facts, and emphasized researching all the data and facts reported in the analysis.
MINUTES
TUESDAY, March 27, 2001
PAGE 5
Legislator LaMotte questioned whether the “source control” method would be used, even if dredging were not to take place – Mr. Haggard replied, that as long as DEC approves the method, it would be operational in about 18-months after approval.
During a brief comment period, there were expressions of concerns that the PCBs, if left untreated, will still remain in the food chain (fish), and cause serious health problems. Marion Rose expressed that there have been reports that PCBs have found their way into the air, and that there is much concern with regard to the Croton Reservoir and the Watershed. She also noted that if PCBs are left in water over a period of time, they would reach unsafe levels.
Legislator LaMotte expressed that both sides (pro & con) have been very persuasive with regard to the appropriate method, and yet it appears that the general consensus is still unsure of what, if any, is the best possible remedy to control this problem.
Upon digesting the presented information Legislator Maisano interjected, then questioned the logistics of this endeavor, and expressed that he believes this Committee has not researched enough to come to an educated decision at this time, on what stand should be taken on this issue. Legislator Maisano also suggested that a letter be written to EPA expressing this concern. Chair Kaplowitz expressed that a decision will be made by the Committee by the April 17th deadline on what it will do.
With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned on the motion of Legislator Pinto, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, at 5:01 p.m.