To the editor:
The EPA and GE are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Saying that hydraulic dredging will solve all the issues that have been raised concerning transportation and removal of contaminated PCB sediment from the Rest of River portion of the Housatonic is only presented to make people believe that this is the ultimate solution. Having the December 4 presentation at Taconic High School where we were told of the EPA decision to allow GE to utilize hydraulic dredging as the primary sediment-removal process did not give concerned stakeholders adequate time to review the 424-page document submitted to the EPA by GE where it was one of four possible selections.
Additionally, the EPA and GE have consistently described hydraulic dredging as “IF FEASIBLE.” If/when this method should become “NOT FEASIBLE”, the fallback is truck transport on our state, municipal, and private roads.
Hydraulic dredging has many issues worthy of discussion when being considered for sediment removal from a river system. It should be noted that hydraulic dredging was considered but ruled out as a possible remediation process of the Hudson River, which was also contaminated by with PCBs by GE. Many of the same issues of the Hudson should also be determined when considering this process for the Housatonic River. Most notably, it is not possible to predetermine what lies in the sediment of the river that is not visible from a cursory look at the river. Sticks, rocks, and other large debris can wreak havoc on the dredging equipment, causing breakdown of the pumping equipment, expensive repairs, and delays to the removal process. Ideally, silt-like sediment with no debris would make this process more desirable. Another issue to consider is the length of the dredge pipes for pumping sediment. Due to the distance being considered, additional pumps will be required to transport the sediment. Each additional pump will result in sound pollution in their respective surrounding neighborhoods. These devices are extremely noisy and will emit untold levels of diesel or gasoline exhaust and corresponding petrochemical particulate matter. Hydraulic dredging can also be more effective when used for horizontal pumping, but that will not be the case for the tubes that will be used to bring sediment to the UDF area, where the pumps will be required to pump uphill for considerable lengths. The more vertical pumping required, the larger and noisier pumps that will be required, as well as the increased number of pumps for these locations. This noise will affect the quality of life for those residents and wildlife within earshot of these pumps, and we know how sound travels. Additionally, much of the work will occur during summer months when windows are open to our homes.
There is one last big issue of hydraulic dredging that must be considered and should concern anyone in the towns along the river. A relatively large amount of water (approximately 90 percent by weight) is sucked with the sediment to create the slurry. Using that amount of water from the normal river flow will reduce that flow significantly downstream in the river from the pumps. If you reduce the river flow, it will cause more of the river banks to be exposed to the air where it will dry out and be subject to increased dust and airborne PCB contamination to our neighborhoods and onto higher air currents that can travel vast distances to impact inhalation and terrestrial endpoints in areas far from the immediate Housatonic watershed. The lower flow will occur all along the river below where the dredging will occur from day one of this process. This issue was not considered during previous presentations by GE or the EPA. The new TAG Advisor for HRI has told us that these drying sediments actually result in more airborne PCB issues than normally experienced in a river system. It should also be stated that hydraulic dredging stirs up some contaminated sediment that will be released in the river and will also flow downstream where less water in the river will result in more air drying of those sediments and more airborne PCB dust being blown into our homes, schools, workplaces, etc.
Lastly, this decision came as a result of so many citizens and towns being unhappy with the truck transport of PCB contaminated sediments through our residential roads. That is why so much dredging is proposed to reduce that truck traffic. As with all decisions for Rest of River, they are subject to change, so I believe it is a smoke screen at this time to stop the residents and towns from objecting to the truck traffic disruptions. What is still not known and for some reason not required to be presented by GE or EPA is how the removed sediment will be replaced in the river, where clean fill will be transported from, or how many trucks will still need to travel through our towns. Because these trucks will not contain PCB sediment from the river, no one needs to address any of these issues. Yet there will be considerable truck traffic through our towns and neighborhoods and because they will contain “clean fill,” there will be no controls over dust caused by these trucks. We should also know what the plans will be for all this traffic.
One positive thing that has occurred with Rest of River issues in a long time: The EPA Challenge for Alternative Technologies has received a great response with 98 submissions from around the world. As a result, the EPA has extended the evaluation deadline to February 2025. Hopefully one of these technologies will allow a reduction in the amount of PCB contamination levels to be placed in the UDF or possibly even eliminate the need of a toxic dump the size of 10 football fields and close to 100 feet thick. We continue to have hope that we will have a fishable and swimmable river without the need for any dumps in our area.
Charles Cianfarini
Interim executive director of Citizens for PCB Removal
Pittsfield
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
