Lee — Although Lee officials, residents, and local environmental groups have long called for a change in the Environmental Protection Agency’s approach to remediating the Housatonic River, representatives of the federal group remain steadfast in pushing forward with the 2020 plan that puts an Upland Disposal Facility (UDF), or toxic-waste project, in the town. And nothing seems to sway that endeavor, not even alleged proof from Lee’s Select Board that General Electric Company—the entity responsible for the contamination following decades of depositing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the waterway from its Pittsfield plant—colluded with the product’s manufacturer, Monsanto Company, to absolve the latter from potential liability by continuing to sell the now-banned chemicals with knowledge of its dangerous effects to human health and the environment.
On January 2, the Lee Select Board signed a letter that was subsequently sent to national and state officials, including the EPA, allegedly offering proof that an illegal agreement existed since 1972 between GE and Monsanto. Pursuant to the letter and stated as problematic for Lee representatives is that this agreement wasn’t disclosed to the EPA or the First Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed the 2020 permit following a lawsuit challenging its legality. Further, the Select Board alleges that the EPA failed to investigate this relationship between the two companies.
On January 17, the EPA responded. (See the response here.)
“The Rest of River cleanup plan is final and was fully affirmed by EPA’s national Environmental Appeals Board and the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, including issues related to the extent of cleanup and treatment of PCBs,” Bryan Olson, director of the EPA Superfund & Emergency Management Division, stated in the response. “Nothing in the letter from the Town of Lee, including the GE/Monsanto indemnity agreement, affects the finality of the cleanup plan or the Court’s approval of that plan.”
Notwithstanding the GE/Monsanto documents supplementing Lee’s letter, the EPA’s response stated that the agency is aware of the toxicity and presence of PCBs in the Housatonic River as well as the risks those toxins provide and is therefore moving to clean up the waterway as quickly as possible. Refuting expert testimony attached to Lee’s correspondence, the EPA response stands behind the safety of the cleanup project, including the UDF slated for Lee. It also provides a listing of agency actions showing its commitment to providing opportunities for the town to give input, including offering public input periods; funding a technical advisor to review the GE remediation plan independently for local municipalities and environmental group Housatonic River Initiative; conducting bimonthly discussions with Lee and Lenox town administrators; and participating in Lee’s November town meeting to discuss GE’s October 31 Transportation and Disposal Plan release. Finally, the agency cited its participation in Citizens’ Coordinating Council (CCC) sessions, with that group usually meeting quarterly. The council is set to convene again on January 24, with its published agenda listing a discussion on the transportation plan.
Olson offered Lee officials the opportunity to talk further about the January 2 letter in their biweekly EPA project team call.
The EPA correspondence refers to Lee’s issues with the remediation plan—a plan that was signed off by former Lee officials in a closed-door meeting with representatives from the EPA as well as the towns of Great Barrington, Lenox, Sheffield, and Stockbridge—as an expression of “discontent.”
Although Lee representatives have not put out a written comment on behalf of the town to the EPA’s January 17 response, Select Board Chair Robert “Bob” Jones, in a phone call with The Berkshire Edge, called the correspondence “the most blatant example of [being dismissive]” he has seen since working on the issue. “They’ve completely ignored the public input,” he said of EPA’s remediation effort actions. “They’ve not been responsive [to public input taken].”
Citing PCB experts and geologist opinions being dismissed repeatedly by the agency, Jones said the CCC meetings haven’t made a “difference in terms of turning this thing around, whether it’s the UDF or whether it’s a more comprehensive cleanup or a more effective cleanup, whether it’s trucks versus trains.”
“They’ve got a plan, they’re going to stick with that,” he said. “They tell us that ‘we’ve got a plan and we’re sticking to it.’ Nothing’s going to change.”
Jones faulted the November meeting featuring GE’s presentation of its plan to transport dredged PCB-laden materials to the UDF and out of state for not investigating transportation by trains, focusing solely on truck travel, a method currently being disputed as not the safest or most effective by six Berkshire towns as well as local boards of health.
“They never even reached out to the railroads,” he said of GE’s development of rail transportation as an option in the remediation project. “Anybody who thinks the EPA is there because of environmental protection is mistaken.”
Public input on the transportation plan is open until February 1, with the upcoming CCC meeting presentation materials stating that the EPA considers the GE rail evaluation “inadequate” and that the agency will require a revision to reflect a “better” evaluation for rail usage.
