[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER RESOURCES CONTAMINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEANUP IN THE HUDSON VALLEY
=======================================================================
(110-114)
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 11, 2008 (EAST FISHKILL, NY)
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-186 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice York
Chair CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Louisiana
Columbia JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Carlson, Dr. G. Anders, Director, Division of Environmental
Health Investigation, New York State Department of Health,
Troy, New York................................................. 16
Degnan, Hon. John, Former Mayor, Village of Brewster............. 5
Hall, Debra, Hopewell Junction Citizens for Clean Water.......... 5
Hickman, John, East Fishkill Town Supervisor..................... 5
Pavlou, George, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New
York, New York................................................. 16
Washington, Val, Deputy Commissioner for Remediation and
Materials Management, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York................... 16
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., of New York............................ 34
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Carlson, G. Anders............................................... 36
Degnan, Hon. John................................................ 42
Hall, Debra...................................................... 45
Hickman, John.................................................... 50
Pavlou, George................................................... 52
Washington, Val.................................................. 63
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.012
WATER RESOURCES CONTAMINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP IN THE HUDSON
VALLEY
----------
Friday, April 11, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
East Fishkill, NY.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
East Fishkill Town Hall, East Fishkill, New York, Hon. Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Johnson. Good morning.
I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment to order.
Today, we will receive testimony in regards to water
resources contamination and environmental cleanup in the Hudson
Valley region.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, or Superfund, provides broad Federal
authority to respond to releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the
environment.
Former Senator Robert T. Safford, Republican from Vermont
and at one time the Chairman of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, described the need for Superfund
legislation in the June 1981 EPA Journal. He wrote:
"Together with the other Members of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, I worked on this legislation for
nearly three years. ...Eighty percent of American people wanted
some legislation. ...The Surgeon General of the United States
considers toxic chemicals to pose a major threat to health in
the United States or the decade of the 1980s. Modern chemical
technology has produced miracles that have greatly improved
this nation's standard of living. But the increased generation
of hazardous substances associated with these new products has
proved to be a serious threat to our nation's public health and
environment."
The Superfund was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980.
Since March 1980, TCE and TCA chemicals have been detected in a
drinking water well located on the Hopewell Precision property,
which we will discuss today. Until 1983, operators disposed of
dry-cleaning wastes in a well located adjacent to the
establishment at the Brewster Well Field site, which we will
also discuss today. The Superfund law was timely in the Hudson
Valley, just as it was across the nation.
A Native American proverb states: "We do not inherit the
earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
This is an important idea that we should all keep in mind
as we listen to today's testimony. While we are here to discuss
the decontamination of sites that, through recent history, have
harmed our land, soil and air, we must not simply focus on the
Superfund cleanup program.
We must also consider and have concern for the human health
impacts that these sites have had on our communities, and the
problems that these sites can bring about in the future if not
properly handled in a timely manner.
I would like to thank Congressman Hall for bringing to the
Subcommittee's attention the need for such a hearing. The
Congressman has a long history of environmental activism,
fighting for safe energy and environmental protection of the
Hudson Valley long before he took a seat on our Committee.
He has brought his passion for these issues to us, using
his expertise to raise awareness on the Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee and throughout the halls of Congress.
I would also like to welcome our witnesses here today. I
look forward to hearing your testimony on the Federal and State
agency roles in addressing public health risks posed by
contaminated sites in the Hudson Valley, as well as the
adequacy of existing health standards to address these
concerns.
Before I yield to my colleague, the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I ask for
unanimous consent to allow Members five additional legislative
days to submit statements for the record on this hearing.
Ranking Member Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. My name is John Boozman. I represent the Third
District from Arkansas, and the way that the hills and the
things around here are very, very similar to where I come from.
It is a beautiful part of the country.
As a newly appointed Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I
am delighted to be here to learn firsthand about the important
pollution issues here in the Hudson Valley.
An important objective of the EPA Superfund is to protect
human health from the risks of hazardous substances like TCE.
We must be sure that the dollars we spend for the Superfund
program do indeed reduce the public health risks. EPA and the
State of New York have clearly done a great deal here in the
Hudson Valley to try to reduce human exposure to dangerous
pollutants.
The question remains; what are the next steps that need to
be taken? We passed a lot of laws in Washington establishing
new funding programs that we hope are doing some good for
people. I think it is important for Members of Congress to get
out of Washington and out of our own Congressional districts to
see other areas of the country and to listen to citizens tell
us what is working and what is not, so I have come here to
listen, and I look forward to hearing from our legislators and
share with us their real world experiences with the Superfund
program.
I want to thank Representative Hall for bringing this issue
to our attention and Chairwoman Johnson for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. I now recognize
Congressman Hall.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like
to thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Boozman for
traveling here, when they could have spent last night in their
own beds in Texas and Arkansas respectively and in their home
districts today, so we can hold this hearing and discuss the
impact of the pollution from Superfund sites is having on
communities and on the health of our citizens in the Hudson
Valley. I would also like to thank our esteemed panel of
witnesses for appearing here to share their views.
I would like also, at this time, if I may, Madam Chair, to
request that the statement by Congressman Hinchey, who
represents New York's 22nd Congressional District, be entered
into the record. There is also a letter from Dutchess County
Legislator Marge Horton that I would ask to be introduced into
the record. I will also acknowledge some local officials and
staff: Taylor Palmer from the Representative Nita Lowey's
staff; Mike Russo, from Representative Kirsten Gillibrand's
staff; Bill McCabe, Dutchess County Legislator; Sandra
Goldberg, Dutchess County Legislator; Steve Neuhaus, Supervisor
of the Town of Chester; and, I know he is not on the witness
list, but also Region Three director, Will Chamberlain. I would
like to recognize those individuals, in addition to those who
were officially testifying today.
I know there are a few more people who would want to be in
this hearing and could not attend. It is not every day that
Congress steps out of the Beltway, as Mr. Boozman said, but it
is important that we do undertake a close and personal
investigation of the challenges that we face.
The Hudson Valley has been blessed with an abundance of
water resources, sometimes in recent years too much water, and
the commitment of local residents to protecting these resources
is strong. In the 19th congressional districts, we are home to
no less than five active sites on the Superfund's National
Priority List, or NPL. You will hear the initials NPL later.
That's what it means.
The sites on that list include Carroll and Dubies Sewage
Disposal in Port Jervis, and Deer Park, the Nepera Chemical
site in Hamptonburgh, Brewster Well Field in Brewster, and
right here where we hold this hearing, Shenandoah Road in East
Fishkill and the Hopewell Precision Site in Hopewell Junction.
This list is reserved for sites throughout the country that
are far and away the most hazardous, and in fact, the worst of
the worst. They create a public health risk and an economic
burden that can last for years and generations. We need to
constantly examine what can be done to accelerate their
cleanup.
It is my hope that today's examination of these sites will
provide specific insight to take back to Washington and apply
to the Superfund program as a whole_because what is happening
here is directly related to the Superfund program on a national
basis. The same pollutants, the same funding challenges, the
same desire to accelerate cleanup are in evidence throughout
the country.
One of the most common threads among Superfund sites is the
pollutant that is the main culprit right here in Hopewell
Junction: TCE, or trichloroethylene. At the Hopewell Precision
site, it was used for degreasing, and then recklessly dumped
into the ground, contaminating wells, creating vapor intrusion
and leaving a mile and a half long underground plume from the
site.
Contact with that chemical can have a number of serious
health consequences ranging from dizziness and headaches to
kidney and liver damage, and likely even to cancer.
The citizens of the Hopewell area are not alone in having
to deal with TCE. Since 2003, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry indicated that TCE was present at 852 of
the 1,430 or almost 60 percent of the National Priority List
sites of TCE as one of the main contaminants. Despite this
widespread prevalence, the EPA, our Environmental Protection
Agency, has yet to move forward with a protective standard for
TCE that would make it easier for communities to cope with the
health threats of this pollutant.
I share the view of the National Academy of Sciences that
there is ample evidence to move forward, and have joined
Congressman Hinchey in introducing the TCE Reduction Act. This
legislation would spur EPA action on the subject. I hope the
record we establish here will forward that cause.
I am also looking forward to examining the impact of EPA's
decreasing investment in Superfund and the growing reliance on
US Treasury revenues on cleanup progress. Although the original
principle that the polluter pays is still present in Superfund,
the expiration of the taxes on polluting industries in 1995 has
limited resources and placed greater strain on the program.
Since 2004, the program for cleanup has relied almost
exclusively on you, the taxpayer. Those funds do not come from
polluter tax dollars. They come from your pocket. This is not
the intent of the Superfund law, nor the way it was written.
Faced with an increasingly tight budgetary climate, the
Superfund program has begun to fall significantly behind needed
funding levels on a national basis. Since fiscal year '02,
funding has been consistently beneath where it should be, about
$400 million below the annual need.
Similarly, reviews from within EPA have raised concern that
the agency is not doing as well as it could in recovering costs
from responsible parties. When resources are not available,
cleanup suffers and the communities that are stuck with these
toxic sites continue to be harmed.
We, as a government, have to do better, and I am hopeful
that today's hearing will provide us with a deeper
understanding of how we can move in that direction, both in the
19th District and around the country. I thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Without objection, we will enter
into the record those documents you recommended.
We will begin our testimony with the first panel. What we
will do is hear from the three of you before questions begin,
and you will comment in the order in which you are listed, Ms.
Hall, Mr. Hickman and Mr. Degnan. We will now hear Ms. Hall.
TESTIMONY OF DEBRA HALL, HOPEWELL JUNCTION CITIZENS FOR CLEAN
WATER; JOHN HICKMAN, EAST FISHKILL TOWN SUPERVISOR; AND THE
HON. JOHN DEGNAN, FORMER MAYOR, VILLAGE OF BREWSTER
Ms. Hall. My name is Debra Hall. In the past seven years,
my husband and I have lived above the plume of chlorinated
solvent contamination emanating from the Hopewell Precision
plant here in Hopewell Junction, New York. I would like to
thank Congressman Hall, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of New
York and Ranking Member Boozman from Arkansas for coming to
hear directly from people whose health and property are
impacted by toxic contamination.
I have five messages for you today. I would like to think
they are simple but the EPA must promulgate a protective
standard for trichloroethylane, one of the contaminants that
polluted my private well as well as the air in my home. Five
parts per billion is no longer acceptable. We had hoped that
the EPA would finalize its 2001 draft Human Health Risk
Assessment, which found that TCE was five to 65 times as toxic
as previously believed.
In 2002, the EPA Science Advisory Board conducted a
generally positive peer review, but instead of finalizing the
risk assessment, EPA bent to the wishes of federal polluting
agencies and sent the question of the National Academy of
Sciences to the National Academy of Sciences for a rereview.
The academy concluded that the evidence on carcinogenic
risks and other health hazards from exposure to
trichloroethylane has strengthened since 2001, and the
Committee recommends that federal agencies finalize their risk
assessment with currently available data so that risk
management decisions can be made expeditiously.
Now we are told that there is so much new information about
TCE, it would be best to do a completely new study.
Stakeholders agree that more is being learned all the time,
but we also know that the standard needs to be lowered. Our
health and lives depend on it. A completely good report is gone
into the garbage. Instead of getting implemented, instead of
our families being protected by a more protective standard, we
will now have to wait years for another study. This does not
make any sense. It is like building a four-lane bridge but
never using it. Instead it gets demolished because a six-lane
bridge is now needed. It just does not make any sense.
Furthermore, EPA needs to finalize its 2002 Vapor Intrusion
Guidance using ideas from impacted communities as well as other
experts. We believe that vapor mitigation units should be
installed wherever volatile organic compounds are detected
above outdoor air levels. It would be protective and cheaper in
the long run since testing and mitigation usually costs about
the same. This is what was done at our site, and we feel it is
working out very well. Every home must be retested to make sure
the system is working.
I was disappointed to learn recently that there is no plan
to complete the guidance, despite ongoing technical work and
the constructive input from impacted communities.
The EPA should organize a genuine national forum that
brings vapor intrusion stakeholders from all across the country
together with experts and government officials.
Last month I presented to a roomful of officials and
consultants with four of the stakeholders. We all provided lots
of information and even taught the audience a thing or two. EPA
is organizing another forum this fall, but it will again be a
handful of community stakeholders with hundreds of paid people
in suits, unless EPA provides travel assistance to enable
people like me from around--from all over the country to
attend.
The EPA and others should learn what is important to the
people who are affected, concerns are very different when you
walk in our shoes. Congress needs to reinstate the Superfund
tax. In the near future, hopefully, we are going to find out
what remedies will be used to clean the Hopewell Precision
site, but we aren't sure EPA will have the money to implement
them, and if we get the money here, it will be at the expense
of some other contaminated community.
It has been five long years already since this began for
us. Without enough money, our community will be indefinitely
stigmatized. We want action to help us climb out of this hole.
We need water immediately. Impacted homeowners, not polluters,
deserve property tax relief. Instead of taxing Hopewell
Precision, the government is allowing the company to laugh all
the way to the bank. It was allowed to lower its property
assessment by almost 80 percent because the property is
contaminated because of themselves. The law is different for
homeowners. Our assessments are close to those of homes without
contamination. Hopewell Precision's large building and five
acres are being assessed the same as some homes with one acre.
Please understand that I am not complaining about the work
that EPA did here at the Hopewell Precision site. In fact, we
are extremely pleased with Angela Carpenter, Lorenzo Thantu and
Don Graham's work. They are reliable, accessible and
personable. It is the policies, procedures and of course the
money that concern us. Thank you for listening. I look forward
to hearing how you will take action to address the issues I
have raised.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Ms. Hall. I failed to say
earlier that we would like you to limit your testimony to five
minutes, and we will put your entire statement into the record.
Ms. Hall. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. John Hickman.
Mr. Hickman. Thank you very much. This is short testimony.
Good morning, my name is John Hickman. I am the Supervisor of
the Town of East Fishkill. I would like to thank the
Congressional Subcommittee on Water Resources and the
Environment for meeting here in the Town of East Fishkill.
The Town of East Fishkill has two Superfund sites, one
created by a contractor and another created by a business who
disposed of cleaning solvents carelessly, possibly criminally,
seriously contaminating our groundwater. These activities
continued unnoticed for decades resulting in widespread
contamination by TCE, a silent, slow-moving, slow-acting poison
that affects unsuspecting people through groundwater
contamination and vapor intrusion. To those living in the
affected areas, I can only say that people--to those living in
the affected areas, I can only say that people should not have
to live such a nightmare. Indeed, the stories that I have heard
firsthand of the health and developmental problems of families
living in the Ryan Drive Superfund site are truly, truly
heartbreaking, and my heart goes out to those so affected.
I too would like to commend the EPA on their response. In
my capacity, dealing with Lorenzo Thantu and Damien Dudah of
the EPA on the respective sites, I have found that both treat
our citizens with sensitivity and understanding. I would state
that the most frustrating part of the process is the time that
it takes in analyzing the contamination, providing temporary
services, and designing and implementing a remediation plan. It
is indeed a long and drawn-out process. I feel that we need
stronger regulation and oversight, legislation and enforcement
at a higher level, of individuals and businesses that use such
chemicals so that we may prevent more Superfund sites from
happening. The prevention of such situation is paramount,
saving people the horrors of living in contaminated sites.
In our case, sadly, when the damage has been done, we need
help in protecting the health of our people and in the
remediation of the contamination. The Town of East Fishkill
does not have the resources to address such issues. I would
like to thank the members of the local group, Citizens For
Clean Water, for their efforts in bringing the Ryan Drive
situation to our attention. I would like to thank the Members
of this Subcommittee for being here today. I would like to
thank Congressman John Hall and Maurice Hinchey for introducing
legislation directing the EPA to set stricter regulations on
TCE. We need your help in addressing an issue, not simply of
contamination but of families suffering tragically from daily
exposure to TCE. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. We will now have
testimony from Mr. John Degnan, former Mayor of Brewster.
Mr. Degnan. I would like to thank Congressman John Hall for
inviting me here today and our host, Supervisor John Hickman,
and the good people of the Town of East Fishkill. I would also
like to thank Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and Ranking
Member John Boozman and all the Members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for keeping eyes on the
Hudson River Valley and our local challenges for water quality.
Brewster is home to the Superfund site. In 1978, Brewster
discovered VOCs in its municipal water supply. Investigations
discovered a rogue drycleaner had used a drywell to dispose of
his production waste for about 20 years. The drywell was
immediately adjacent to the source of the village water supply.
The site was placed on the National Priorities List of
Superfund sites in December 1982. Shovels in the ground to
ensure safe drinking water in Brewster. In 1984, the village,
under a cooperative agreement with EPA, installed a full-scale
air stripper, which is currently providing safe drinking water
to the village residents. A groundwater management system was
developed, installed and fully operational by April of 1987.
Four extraction wells feed a packed column airstripper treating
a volume of about 50 gallons of water per minute. The extracted
treated water is discharged into the East Branch of the Croton
River near the city watershed.
In late 1991, approximately 160 tons of contaminated soil
were removed from the source site. Final confirmation samples
showed that the target cleanup goal of 4 milligrams per kilo
for PCE in the unsaturated zone was accomplished and acceptable
to health standards.
In 2007, EPA modified its GMS by adding two extraction
wells and a new airstripper at the source site. The new
stripper continues to extract about 50 gallons per minute and
discharges into the same water body. A sub-slab mitigation
system was also installed at the source site.
My observations: The Village of Brewster, in partnership
with the EPA the DEC, the DEP and the Putnam County Board of
Health, delivers safe drinking water to its residents. Quoting
from the five-year review report prepared by the EPA in 2007
"Groundwater monitoring results do not indicate that the mass
reduction of PCE is occurring at the rate anticipated."
The 1986 record of decision estimated ten years for
remediation. Further, the anticipated duration of the pumping
to reach maximum contaminated levels is not presently known.
PCE levels at the source property have continued to exceed safe
water drinking standards. Concentrations are generally lower
and they are showing that the remedy is improving.
EPA left the door open with their 2000 report. What
enhancements should be considered to further remedy the
conditions? What are the results of air monitoring in the
source building? Soil gas samples suggest that residual source
materials may remain underneath the building. Has the capture
plume moved? Has EPA evaluated the performance of the modified
GMS? Does EPA have an action plan?
EPA Director of Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
George Pavlou, closes his report in 2007 by suggesting that
these questions need to be addressed prior to the transfer to
the state.
Documentation and communication: The EPA website is a good
source for information. The background and case study are well-
documented. Two five-year reports from 2002 and 2007 are
readily available to anyone who wishes to review the history.
The EPA makes reference to correspondence shared with the
planning board of the Town of Southeast. It is my
recommendation that the correspondence generated by the EPA
also be shared with the Village of Brewster.
The closing comments: In my opinion, the EPA has earned an
academic A for taking the lead in protecting the drinking water
in Brewster; a grade of B on the 26-year time frame thus far.
It took nine years to get to the source for remediation and
contaminated soils. A grade of B plus for transparency and
recommendations. I asked for a more proactive approach on the
part of the EPA in sharing current information. This is the
record and the history. From a local stakeholder, I pray that
the EPA in collaboration with its partners earns excellent
grades for the future. Anything else would be irresponsible and
a danger to the health of Brewster's people.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today, and I
look forward to our collective water quality success stories.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. We will now begin our
first round of questions. Ms. Hall, you made several
recommendations. How would you prioritize your recommendations?
Ms. Hall. First and foremost, the Hopewell Precision site
victims need to get water: clean water. We don't even know yet
where it is going to come from, when into this five years. We
have actually been contaminated since the '70s and '80s. The
government unfortunately knew that this company since 1979 had
dumped all these chemicals and a very--an investigation was
done, but it was done very poorly, and the site was delisted in
'94, saying everything was great.
Unfortunately nobody ever told the residents that any
investigation was done at all, and two years later, Hopewell
Precision bought 48 55-gallon drums more of TCE. They used it,
and there is no record of where they are, or what they did with
the used TCE. Here it happened again. You know it that we want
to have our water. We want to be able to be able to sell our
homes. We want to be able to turn the faucet on and know that
we are protected.
It is very hard for people that don't have systems in their
home because they don't have that 5 part per billion threshold,
so they are not being protected, and there are at least 12
homes like that that I know of, so that would be number one.
Number two is they need to_the EPA needs to_lower the TCE
standard. I mean this should have happened in 2002. We are
already in 2008, six years later, and now they want to start a
whole brand new--a whole brand new report. It doesn't make any
sense. We have a report already. Let's use that. If you want to
add onto it, we will add onto it, but why not use what was
done, peer reviewed, all that money went into it, all that time
went into it, and it is ridiculous not to use it.
Of course the Superfund tax needs to be implemented again.
I mean, to make the people pay for what companies have done is
not right. It is just not right. I don't understand why the tax
was taken away from these companies. Hopewell Precision has not
paid a dime for any of this yet except to their attorneys. They
have not paid one cent, yet the people have, you know, and it
is just not fair, and residents should--our assessments on our
homes, why is it that Hopewell Precision is allowed to lower
their assessment by 80 percent simply because they are an
industrial property. They polluted themselves and they are able
to lower their assessment because they are polluting, yet the
people that have the water and the air contamination, they are
being told, ``well, you can't do that because you're
residential, you are a whole different thing.'' We can lower it
a little bit, but that's about it. But they lowered it by about
80 percent. That's a lot, and a lot of us are paying top dollar
on our assessments for the schools, for everything else and our
homes are basically unsellable, and it is not fair, and of
course stakeholders need to be more informed, need to be
invited to these conventions that are being held twice a year
about vapor intrusion and TCE, and we should be involved more,
and we are not.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hickman, in your testimony, you stated that the most
frustrating part of this process is the length of time it
takes. In your view, what is the reason for this process
dragging out, and how would you alleviate that?
Mr. Hickman. I think it is well-recognized the government
does work slowly. We all have experienced that. Again I commend
the EPA. I don't know between the time of the analysis, and I
really can't answer that. I think the EPA would be better
suited to answer why this takes several, several years for
remediation. I'd just like to say anything that the Town of
East Fishkill could do, we would. We do have water sources not
far from where we would be more than happy to step in and work
with the EPA. I don't know. I couldn't answer what the holdup
is. The EPA is very thorough and contamination of this manner
is a very, very difficult thing to remediate. Possibly if they
did it concurrently, remediation and short-term mitigation
might be a help. I know you can analyze the problem, try to set
up a remediation, but I think at the same time we could also
set up mitigation--actually they have.
The treatment systems have done just that, but I would
suggest that possibly we look for more of a permanent
mitigation while we look to remediate the problem, but it is
very complicated, and we are talking chemicals that are not
easily removed from the environment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Degnan, in your testimony you
noted that the EPA's 2007 report found that the PCE is not
being reduced at the rate anticipated. In your view, what next
steps need to be taken?
Mr. Degnan. In my view, we have to get much more serious
with the source contaminations. It took us nine years to get to
a point where we were remediating soils. As I stated in my
testimony, the drinking water is safe in the Village of
Brewster. There are two pack air column strippers in action
right now and all were extracted from the municipal wells, it
was treated.
The second stripper is operated by the EPA and it is
continuing the process of trying to remediate the soils. I am a
big proponent of the cooperation between the EPA and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection where both
those agencies work together to come up with conformance-based
systems to deal with self-certification of environmental
systems, management systems for dry cleaners, photo shop
printers and print shops.
I believe that these conformance-based systems could be
expanded into auto body shops, nail salons and any other type
of business at the local level that is--has the potential to
pollute our water systems.
So I would ask that in addition to the good work that these
agencies that oversee our water supply bring in enforcing
regulatory compliance also offer tools for conformance-based
systems where education, training and outreach is given to the
local stakeholders to educate them as to what the impact of bad
business can be when it comes to water pollution. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Now, in your testimony, you indicated that the
past and current water superintendents were not aware of the
current status of the pollution. How do they communicate or do
they communicate.
Mr. Degnan. Up until today's testimony, I have not had the
opportunity to meet local representatives from the EPA. I am
proud of the work that I have done in public service in forming
relationships with New York City's Department of Environmental
Protection, New York State's Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Putnam County Board of Health. I believe
that it is the duty of the EPA to take a proactive position
when it comes to communication that to have our superintendents
of water not be aware of the actions that took place in 2007 to
introduce an airstripper at the source tells me that there is a
breakdown in communication.
Again, I think the EPA has done a very good job on their
website in providing us with the information that we need to
stay current, but I would ask the communication be more
proactive, and I know that the village board of trustees would
welcome an opportunity to establish a relationship with local
EPA representatives.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much on that. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Have you tried to do
that, Mr. Degnan? I mean, you know, you said that you would
like to establish a local relationship. I mean, have you all
asked to meet with them periodically and been refused?
Mr. Degnan. We have not been refused in actuality. When I
was the Mayor in the Village of Brewster and we received the
2007 review report, I made it my business as Mayor to contact
EPA and indeed did talk to staff people and talked about the
review report.
However, none of the future intentions of the capital
expenditures, the actual construction, the relationship with
the source site was discussed at that time, and I can assure
you, sir, that I am proactive in my efforts to communicate to
form relationships.
Mr. Boozman. I don't dispute that at all, that really is
important in understanding what is going on and getting
insight. Maybe it's something that we can help facilitate. Can
you tell us about, you know, how this went on? Can you tell us
about some of the health aspects that maybe some of your folks
have experienced here? How did you know this was going on and
what happened?
Mr. Hickman. Was that a question for myself.
Mr. Boozman. Somebody can jump in and answer.
Mr. Hickman. I would say when we had the meeting at your
house a few weeks ago and Congressman Hall was there, some of
the stories that were told were just to me heartbreaking. I
couldn't believe that people--and you know, the problem is when
you have health issues and you have a Superfund site, you can't
say this is related to that, but it certainly looks like there
is some connection there.
And there were problems from that one woman that was just
terrible that she was going through with her child, and I spoke
with another woman afterwards. I think the occurrences of
cancer, which is a very scary thing, and I say to myself every
day, how would you feel living there with your family there,
and I know, Debra, you said get out of this hole or get out of
this trap. It is a very, very difficult thing for me to
comprehend.
Ms. Hall. When I first found out that we were contaminated,
I started going door-to-door and people were very open with me
and telling me about illnesses that they had or that their
family had or that their kids have, and I was hearing a lot of
the same things.
Some of the people, after getting their water systems in,
they feel much better and they are back at work, and they are
moving on, but there is lots of people with illnesses in the
neighborhood, and I did ask the Department of Health to do a
health statistics review. Unfortunately, that means it is only
statistics, so 43 percent of the population in the study have
never been exposed to the contaminants. This study is done with
somebody sitting at a desk in Albany and they look at census
reports of blocks that they have and that's how they do the
study. They don't actually go door-to-door and talk to people
like I did, so they don't really know firsthand, and I don't
think it is a very good way to do health review.
Unfortunately, I am being told it is the only thing that we
have, but there is lots of people that don't want to speak out.
They either don't want the cameras on them or they don't want
to embarrass their kids. Their kids have gotten better and they
moved on, and they don't want to embarrass them or put any kind
of spot light on their home, so a lot of people are quiet but
they are suffering, lots of them.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you for your testimony. I enjoyed
it. It was very helpful. You know, as a person that is directly
affected living there and you two guys in fighting the battle
trying to get these problems solved, it is a tough issue, and
we appreciate all of you for your advocacy, and like I said, it
is really very helpful. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Hall, the
testimony you detailed, the impact the EPC plume has had on the
home assessments and the economic fortunes of the families in
your area, could you describe whether or not there are any day-
to-day costs that are not readily reflected?
For instance, we often hear that a gallon of a bottle of
water is expensive and even more expensive than a gallon of
gasoline. I can't imagine a family who believes its well may be
contaminated with TCE will drink water from the tap. So what
kind of day-to-day costs, if any, or inconveniences persist
even now, as a result of the pollution.
Ms. Hall. Well, many homes have two systems. One for the
water and one for the air. Of course, that's run by
electricity, and we all know that electric bills have gone up a
lot, so we have that extra expense. The home buyers, or the
person living at the home, is paying, paying the electric. We
are lucky that the EPA does come and do our water testing.
Unfortunately, the people that have only a little bit of
contamination, they don't have that option. They either have to
buy their own system, and do the maintenance on that system,
and do the water testing on that system. Because it is 5 parts
per billion they are not being protected. So either they have
to pay a lot of money, like five grand, just for the system.
Mr. Hall of New York. Excuse me, I only have five minutes
so I am going to jump in once in a while. Are you aware of any
neighbors who are below that 5-part per billion level who have
bought that system?
Ms. Hall. I do.
Mr. Hall of New York. Do you know how many of them?
Ms. Hall. I only know of two.
Mr. Hall of New York. How much does a system cost.
Ms. Hall. Well, it is probably about $3,000.
Mr. Hall of New York. So if you have 4.8 per billion,
you're probably going to get a pretty decent amount_your
family's health would be affected, you're virtually the same as
if it was 5.
Ms. Hall. Right, because the standards should be lower, you
are going to be affected if it is 2.
Mr. Hall of New York. So the contamination from Hopewell
Precision first showed up as a direct water contaminant, but in
your testimony, you talked about vapor intrusion. How extensive
is that threat? Is it growing? And how would you assess the
EPA's local efforts to deal with that problem.
Ms. Hall. The EPA did a fantastic job. They went to many
homes, I think over 200, maybe close to 300 homes and tested,
and they did find quite a few homes that had good water but bad
air. In fact, the home in the area that had the worst air had
perfectly good water, but yet it was still affecting this
household. They had a house before they knew about the air. It
was known as the sick house because once they moved in,
everybody living there was always sick, and somebody there had
gotten prostate cancer. Now that the air system is in, people
are not getting sick anymore living in that house, you know, I
don't know if it is a coincidence, but I don't think so.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you very much, Ms. Hall.
Mayor Degnan, I was wondering if you could tell us--I
gather overall that your experience once the airstrippers went
in was positive, although it is not improving the site as
quickly as it should. Would more airstrippers be a help?
Mr. Degnan. Certainly in 2007, when EPA installed the
airstripper at the source, I am sure that it will have an
impact on accelerating the removal of the contaminants, but
keep in mind that it took nine years to get to a point where we
remediated the soils, and this problem was discovered in 1982.
Here we are in 2008, and frankly, I understand that
hydrology and geology of the area make it difficult to map the
aquifer, but we don't know if the plume has migrated, and again
we come back to communication of plan of action and in
informing the local stakeholders of status and putting people
to people together, it has much more potential for alleviating
the concerns of our local population.
Mr. Hall of New York. So you jumped ahead and you answered
a question that I was going to ask about the plume. There
hasn't been a measurement done, or any kind of monitoring, that
shows the size of the plume or the migration underground?
Mr. Degnan. Well, there are extraction wells that are
tested on a biyearly basis by our water superintendent,
although, by Board of Health standards, it is supposed to be
tested on a quarterly basis. We are testing on a monthly basis
so all stakeholders involved up to the EPA, I am sure, realize
the severity of this problem.
What we are really looking for is better communication and
a statement of partnership in maintaining the operations and
maintenance into the future.
Mr. Hall of New York. And under the Massachusetts model
that you described, who is responsible for monitoring self-
certification, and is there any enforcement made.
Mr. Degnan. Self-certification in the environmental results
program of the Massachusetts DEP is an extremely successful
program. Prior to implementation of the program, regulatory
compliance for the businesses I mentioned were under ten
percent. Within three years of the self-certification program,
compliance went up over 90 percent. It has been from my
observations and studies a very successful program.
Now, we all know in this room that if you remove the stick
that there will be people who violate the law and take credit
for being in conformance, so there are unannounced audits that
take place, and if it is found that one of these businesses is
in noncompliance, they are fined and given an opportunity to
correct themselves.
This has all got to be documented and part of the
environmental management system statement, so again, when it
comes to next practices and what the EPA might be contemplating
in parallel with their compliance programs, I think their
conformance-based environmental management system that starts
from strategies at the top but also engages resources at the
local level that will provide training and education will go
along way in mitigating issues of water pollution in New York
State.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you, sir. And in regard to Mr.
Hickman, I am curious, has the site at Hopewell occupied a
significant degree of town time and resources.
Mr. Hickman. It has taken somewhat of the many issues that
we face on a weekly basis. It does take quite a bit of our
time. Again, I say, you know, correspondence with the EPA has
been terrific on their website, we found to be very helpful.
When the time for assessment came, it took up a significant
amount of time for us to try to figure out how to make
allowances for contaminated areas compliant with office real
property taxes, and of course the issue came up of the
Superfund perpetrator, who requested the large reduction in
their assessed value, so we have some time into it. I hate to
think about the economic aspect. And when I look at this
situation, I focus mainly on the health aspect. That is really,
really troubling.
Mr. Hall of New York. Well, certainly the health aspect is
the most troubling for all of us. But as Supervisor, in a time
when everyone is aware of the difficulty of people being able
to pay their property taxes, and the unpopularity of the
property taxes, everything you do in the town is paid for
halfway. So time is money as they say, and any other resources
that you have to put into it, not to mention that if the
assessments at contaminated sites are decreased, in effect,
will result in raising the burden on the residents.
So all this is being done by a corporation, which at this
point is not being made to pay for it.
Mr. Hickman. It would appear that way.
Mr. Hall of New York. I was glad to see you mention the
preventive action in your testimony, and resources aside for
the moment, what thoughts do you have on specific types of
reviews, requests for information or enforcement actions that
would best achieve preventive goals?
Mr. Hickman. Recently New York State has instituted some
laws that we will be implementing obviously as soon as the
Building Department, as far as enforcement, registering
businesses, which we never had to do before, businesses which
will enable us to get a better grasp on potential hazards.
I would like to see on a federal level the licensing of
people that use these kind of chemicals and one--well,
obviously prevention--an ounce of prevention is worth the
common cure, and in this case, as Debra said, 48 55-gallon
drums were not accounted for at this site, so how could that
be?
So this chemical and similar chemicals really need to be
certified in their use and in their return. You know, you have
follow-up as they say, and we look to the federal level for
some kind of legislation and enforcement. We certainly don't
have the resources, but we will implement at the building
department level where we can.
Mr. Hall of New York. What is more alarming to me, if I
understood Ms. Hall's testimony correctly, is that those 48
barrels----
Ms. Hall. 48 55-gallon barrels.
Mr. Hall of New York. Were brought in after the EPA was
already aware there was a problem.
Ms. Hall. It was brought in two years after the DEC had
said that everything was fine and dandy with the site, and that
they did their investigation and that there was--no homes were
at risk of any contamination, and that was false.
Mr. Hall of New York. So EPA had not been involved.
Ms. Hall. No, that was DEC.
Mr. Hall of New York. The last question I have for Mr.
Hickman, has there been any talk that you heard for using
airstrippers or filtering the water from the aquifer in the way
Mr. Degnan has testified?
Ms. Hall. I heard that hopefully soon we are going to find
out, but I don't know when that will be. I am just afraid of
having a situation like what's going on in Brewster and having
to talk about it 25 years later. I don't want to be here
talking about this 25 years later. We shouldn't have to.
Mr. Hall of New York. No, we shouldn't be talking about it
now. It should have already been done.
Ms. Hall. Absolutely.
Mr. Hall of New York. My point is, and then I will yield
back, but my point is that the closer to the occurrence of the
spill that you can take remediative action, the better, the
smaller the plume, the better, the less time for the water to
migrate, the better--I realize a mile and a half plume at the
Hopewell site is going to be very difficult to deal with, but I
am still interested to hear what the DEC and the EPA have to
say about the feasibility of this. Of course it is obviously
going to be expensive in any case, but removing water,
filtering it and then putting pure water back somewhere would
seem to be the ultimate answer if cost were no object. Now, we
all know in this day and age, cost is an object.
Mr. Hickman. Debra, do you remember the EPA gave a
presentation at school a couple years ago, they had some
hydrology, scientists, of that nature? I do think the first
thing they do is get you clean water, but as far as remediating
this chemical, it is a slow-moving process, I guess it is--I
think the problem is it is in deep wells, it is very deep in
the water system.
Ms. Hall. It is in shallow, it's in deep, it is a half mile
wide, a mile and a half long and still moving, and there is
such an abundance of water, it would take us a century to pump
and treat. I really don't see it as being something that would
be feasible to clean our water.
Mr. Hickman. But they do offer a couple of other options--
--
Ms. Hall. Right, until I hear what they say, I don't know.
Mr. Hall of New York. We will ask the next panel what they
think about that. But thank you all for your testimony on this.
Thank you for your championing this cause and for all the hard
work you have done over the years.
Ms. Hall. Thank you for having this. I appreciate you
coming to Hopewell Junction.
Ms. Johnson. Thanks to all of you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hall of New York. While we are changing panels, I would
also like to also acknowledge the presence of Assemblyman Mark
Molinaro who has joined us.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE PAVLOU, DIRECTOR, EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL
RESPONSE DIVISION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION
2, NEW YORK, NEW YORK; VAL WASHINGTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
REMEDIATION AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ALBANY, NEW YORK; DR. G. ANDERS
CARLSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
INVESTIGATION, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TROY, NEW
YORK.
Mr. Pavlou. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Committee, for the invitation to appear here today on behalf of
the USEPA. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA's
efforts to address actions that we have taken at the Superfund
sites in New York's 19th Congressional District.
EPA considers vapor intrusion from contaminated soils or
groundwater into homes and buildings to be a significant
environmental concern and one in which the science is still
evolving. EPA and New York State have paid increased attention
to indoor air concerns at sites where soil or groundwater is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds or VOC's. Given
the complexity of the evolving science in this area, and the
difficulty of relating contamination in the soil and
groundwater to indoor air at a given location, EPA's approach
to determine whether there is a likely concern at a given
location is to conduct sampling from beneath the building, and
of the indoor air environment when the possibility of vapor
intrusion at levels of concern cannot be ruled out.
A key point to keep in mind is that individual site
characteristics such as geology and soil conditions as well as
the chemicals present can greatly affect the potential for
vapor intrusion and may considerably vary from one home to the
next.
Two common chemicals of concern for vapor intrusion sites
are TCE and PCE. These contaminants occur at approximately one-
third to one-half of NPL Superfund sites, approximately one-
third to one-half of EPA Superfund sites. The agency's ongoing
human health assessment of TCE is a complex scientific
activity. The EPA draft TCE health assessment did undergo
independent peer review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board
in 2001 and in September of 2004, the Commission, the National
Academy of Sciences report, to assess the critical scientific
issues that should be addressed in any health risk assessment
of TCE. NAS provided the report in July of 2006. The Agency is
considering the scientific advice of the NAS as well as
recently published scientific literature, as it proceeds with
the development of a new TCE health assessment. The TCE health
assessment is also a top priority for EPA's chemical assessment
program and expects the draft assessment to be reviewed in
December of 2008 followed by a release of the draft or
independent peer review and public comment in 2009.
At this point, I would like to address two of the Superfund
sites here in the 19th Congressional District, the Hopewell
Precision site and the Shenandoah Road site. Though these sites
have similar groundwater contamination problems, one site has
experienced widespread vapor intrusion, while the other site
has not. The Hopewell Precision area groundwater contamination
was caused by a small manufacturer of sheet metal parts and
assemblies who disposed of painting and degreasing wastes
directly in the ground, resulting in a groundwater
contamination extending about one and one half miles long.
In March 2003, EPA provided a quick response to the EPA's
identification of several contaminated residential wells. Since
that time, EPA has sampled 450 residential drinking water wells
and installed carbon filtration systems with 39 wells that
exceeded the drinking water standard of 5 ppb for TCE.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
installed similar filtration systems on 14 additional homes
where the well water exceeded the state standard of 5 parts per
billion trichloroethane, TCA.
Between April 2003 and March 2008, EPA conducted sampling
at 278 homes to determine whether vapor intrusion in homes, you
know, has taken place. To date, EPA has installed sub-slab
ventilation systems in 53 residences to mitigate the intrusion
of TCE vapors into these homes. These ventilation systems have
been successfully addressing vapor intrusion problems. At
present, the EPA has spent $8.5 million in Superfund funds on
activities at the Hopewell site.
Currently EPA initiated a remedial investigation and
feasibility study as part of the long-term site cleanup phase.
We expect to release the report to the public during the summer
of 2008.
In addition, EPA is also preparing a focused feasibility
study to evaluate options for alternative water supplies to
address the groundwater plume. We expect this study to be
released for the public later this spring. The Shenandoah Road
Groundwater contamination area site is located here in East
Fishkill. The investigatory work by New York State DEC and EPA
discovered perchloroethylene seeping from a 1200-gallon septic
tank, which was responsible for the contaminated water. About
6,000 cubic yards have been removed and residential wells have
been tested.
Today EPA, with a total of 105 residential wells--I'm
sorry, EPA, as well as IBM, installed more than 100 residential
well treatment systems into homes and continue monitoring the
affected homes and nearby wells as it continues to address the
immediate threat.
Between April 2004 and March 2008, EPA collected sub-slab
samples from 78 of the residences in the vicinity of the site
to determine vapor intrusion problems. EPA determined that five
properties should receive vapor mitigation systems. The
installation of these systems is expected to be performed by
EPA over the next few months. The other homes will continue to
be monitored during the winter heating season.
EPA has also been working on a permanent solution, to
address the groundwater contamination in the Shenandoah Road
area. The solution involves securing a public water supply
system to the area. Under an EPA order, IBM agreed to construct
a waterline that will serve approximately 150 homes at a cost
of around $10 million. Work on this portion of the project is
progressing and the waterline is expected to be completed by
this fall. IBM is also performing a remedial investigation
feasibility study investigation which should be completed in
2009.
I would like to emphasize that EPA will continue to work
closely with the New York State DEC and the New York State
Department of Health to address all phases of site remediation,
including the vapor intrusion issue in New York State. The
vapor intrusion issue presents unique challenges that EPA and
the states will have to address. As more sites that have vapor
intrusion problems are identified, we anticipate the challenge
will only get larger.
Before I close, I would like to thank Representative Hall
for his ongoing interest in support of these sites. Thank you
again for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee, and I am
happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. We will now hear from Ms.
Washington.
Ms. Washington. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking
Member Boozman, and Congressman Hall for bringing this
Subcommittee to the Hudson Valley. On behalf of Commissioner
Grannis, I want to thank you for providing me with the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing. We really appreciate
you doing this today.
Our experience with environmental remediation here in New
York goes way back. Love Canal was really the genesis of the
federal Superfund laws and the state Superfund laws. And our
experience has grown to include new problems as they emerge. We
have seen a lot of these problems associated with brownfield
remediation, and we have talked a lot today about the unique
and often enigmatic contamination from vapor intrusion.
Starting with the Superfund program, just briefly, I am
going to do my best to try not to repeat what others have said
about some of these problems, but I want to say over the years,
we have listed 2,266 sites in New York as posing a significant
threat to the environment, which is our standard for inclusion
in the state Superfund program.
More than half of these have been fully remediated, which
means that there are still a substantial number that still need
to be addressed. It is a huge problem.
We have developed a very successful partnership with EPA
and of course with the Department of Health in cleaning up 86
sites that are on the National Priorities List. But we are also
always adding to our list of contaminated sites. A few reach
the Superfund status every year, but there are many thousands
of others. We have 16,000 petroleum spills every year. We know
there are thousands of brownfields. There is no complete
inventory, as you know. Hundreds of sites have participated in
our various brownfields programs, but we have a long way to go
in cleaning up these sites, perhaps thousands of which are
plaguing our cities. Buffalo is 40 percent brownfields.
With this level of challenge, it is really important to
fully fund the remedial programs that have been enacted at both
the state and federal level. New York has put a lot of money
into these programs, as has the federal government, but we
really do need new funding for the federal Superfund.
Over the years, the federal government has spent $.75
billion in Superfund sites in New York_these are estimated
numbers_New York, 1.39 billion; and responsible parties, 4.51
billion.
I mention these numbers to point out that what drives that
68 percent that is being paid for by private parties is the
fact that the federal government has the money, or in the past
has had the money, to clean up these sites in negotiations that
aren't working out; that we take action and then go back and
get recompensed later.
But that's an important statistic, the fact that we have
been able to leverage 68 percent of the money that is spent on
federal and state Superfund sites in New York by having that
ability to go in if the PRPs don't clean up these sites.
So again I'm urging_the Commissioner is urging_that we
fully fund Federal Superfund. It is really important to all
these programs.
So also equally, it is important that the state and federal
government enjoy a strong partnership to protect the public
health from releases of hazardous substances, and we have had
that successful partnership in New York.
I want to say a little bit about our program for vapor
intrusion in New York State. At every site we are looking at
the potential for vapor intrusion wherever there are volatile
organic chemicals, VOC's, TCE's, of course, prominent among
them.
We are also going back and looking at the Superfund sites,
state and federal Superfund sites that have been cleaned up
already and have been closed. We are going back again, looking
at those sites that have a potential for posing vapor intrusion
problems. We have developed a list of these ``legacy'' sites.
As far as I know, we are the only state in the entire country
that is doing this. The federal government again has been very
cooperative in working with us in doing this. Fifty-five of
these closed sites where there is potential for vapor intrusion
are federal Superfund sites, and the EPA is addressing every
one of them.
We recognize Congressman Hall's bill, H.R. 5527, and its
purpose in developing a tight, protected standard for TCE's as
a very laudable goal. We again, in our own approach to TCE in
New York, I think, it is very sophisticated. I think Mr.
Carlson will talk more about it. We look forward to working
with Congress and the EPA in developing a national approach to
TCE.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity, and on behalf of
Commissioner Grannis, for letting us testify today.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carlson. Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
Member Boozman and Congressman Hall. I thank you very much for
the opportunity to speak with you today. I am here also at the
invitation of Commissioner Grannis. The New York State
Department of Health participates as a partner with DEC and EPA
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in
investigating, evaluating and responding to reported instances
of toxic chemicals in the environment and particularly inactive
Superfund sites and active RCRA facilities.
The Department's role is to assure that appropriate data
are collected to evaluate existing or potential human
exposures. The Department considers the toxicity of chemicals,
the nature of the exposures and, as necessary, carries out
epidemiologic studies to identify adverse health outcomes.
Further, outreach and education materials are developed for
the community and physicians as we make progress in our
endeavor to identify processes that can reduce, eliminate the
exposures to human beings. These steps are done during the
evaluation of the potential health impacts at federal Superfund
sites such as Hopewell Precision, as we partner with ATSDR to
develop public health assessments.
A public health assessment is an evaluation that is
conducted to determine whether or not and if so to what extent
people have been exposed to hazardous substances from a site.
If the assessment indicates that there have been exposures, the
associated risks and possible health effects, particularly for
children, are examined. Community concerns are considered as
follow-up actions are developed to reduce exposures. The
evaluation results in a public health action plan that offers
measures to protect the community.
As part of my testimony, I have provided a copy of our
public health assessment for Hopewell Precision, the Hopewell
Precision Area Contamination, and this document is also
available on our web page.
The Public Health Assessment made several recommendations
that were directed at reducing exposures to contaminated
drinking water and contaminated soil vapors. This has been done
by fully defining the contamination in the area and maintaining
the appropriate treatment systems to mitigate exposures.
As the Public Health Access Action Plan, part of it, the
Department continues to work with the communities of Hopewell
Junction and Shenandoah Road to include them in the New York
State Volatile Organic Chemical Exposure Registry.
The Exposure Registry was established in 1999 as a tool to
evaluate health assessment, health status and provide for long-
term follow-up for communities and individuals with exposures,
documented exposures to VOC's.
The Registry is currently evaluating exposures and the
health status of New York State residents at locations across
the state where drinking water or indoor air has been
compromised from landfills, industrial sites or other sources.
People enrolled in the registry are kept informed as the
process goes on.
For the Hopewell Precision and Shenandoah Road sites,
sampling information was used to identify impacted households,
questionnaires requesting information concerning exposures and
health outcomes were distributed to 75 Shenandoah Road
households in 2000, and in 2003, contact was made with 47
Hopewell--Precision households who had private well water
contamination, and in 2006 with 192 homes where there was soil
vapor intrusion issues.
We had a 61 percent response rate at Shenandoah Road and a
26 percent response rate at Hopewell Junction, and I think Ms.
Hall made mention of the problem with getting people to
respond, and it is a very real problem we deal with, but we
proceed with that by dealing with, as she mentioned, looking at
statistical data.
We are now under way looking at existing health outcome
data that the state has through our Vital Records, which is our
birth certificates and information that they contain, the New
York State Congenital Malformations Registry and the New York
State Cancer Registry.
Data are being analyzed to evaluate possible adverse birth
outcomes, some of which are low birth weights, congenital
malformations and cancer for both Shenandoah Road and Hopewell
Junction, along with the other sites in New York State.
These data will be used to compare levels of adverse health
outcomes in impacted areas to the levels with the rest of the
state, excluding New York City. This type of review, sometimes
called a health statistics review, cannot link causes and
effects, but can suggest relationships that merit additional
research. We expect a complete outcome portion of this
evaluation in the spring of 2009 and a cancer incident study
about six months later.
The Department staff worked with Hopewell Precision
residents in defining the boundary of the study, and the
communities will be engaged as the project moves on. Once
completed, the report will be shared with the residents and
other stakeholders, but we will present it in a manner that
personal confidential health information will not be
compromised.
In summary, I would say that in collaboration with ATSDR,
the Department developed a comprehensive evaluation of
environmental contamination around the sites to identify the
exposures. We developed the health studies that we are carrying
out, and we worked with ATSDR, EPA and DEC in the community as
we work to mitigate, continue to mitigate exposures. I think at
this point I would say thank you very much for the opportunity
to talk to you again, and I will be certainly happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Pavlou, you indicated that some of the findings on some
of the studies have been more related to recent scientific
information. Have you recommended doing something, and then if
you find more current signs, will it be modified?
Mr. Pavlou. The Office of Research and Development in the
EPA in Washington did respond to all these evaluations in terms
of the new sciences as they come out. However, the guidance
from Washington that we have right now does not preclude us
from using the latest and best credible science such that when
we do have to make decisions regarding vapor intrusion in
houses in Hopewell Precision, it would allow us to install
those systems on the basis of the new credible science because
the guidance says use the lines of evidence that you have at
your disposal to make site-specific decisions such that we are
able to install mitigation systems in houses where not even the
vapor intrusion has reached the house.
In other words, if we do find it in the soil gas matrix,
the vapors the soil gas matrix underneath the house exceeding a
certain level of concentration we are allowed to go into the
house and install those mitigation systems before, you know,
the intrusion happens. So I do have that flexibility to act,
and we have acted in that regard as well.
Ms. Johnson. You have stated that the TCE assessment is top
priority for EPA's chemical assessment program. What does that
mean to be top priority?
Mr. Pavlou. This is a priority for the Office of Research
and Development to conduct a chemical assessment. They have
reviewed all the recommendations from the National Academy of
the Sciences. They are following up with those recommendations
to the point whereby the end of this calendar year, they are
going to be preparing a report for interagency review, meaning
that it will eventually go to the Office of Management and
Budget. It will be reviewed by other scientific agencies of the
government, for example, like NASA, Department of Defense, the
agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, they are
going to get those comments, and eventually they are going to
consolidate those and address those comments such that by the
following year they can issue that report for a peer review, an
independent peer review.
Now, I have to stop at that point because I really do not
know what those comments are going to be from a peer review
perspective. There could be issues that they may, you know,
raise to the point where it may delay it in terms of finalizing
that report.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now I understand at one point a few
years ago, EPA proposed a TCE risk concentration of 2.5
micrograms per cubic meter. When did this get proposed?
Mr. Pavlou. I wouldn't say it was proposed. It was--our
guidance allows us to do these risk assessments on the basis of
toxicity values that we use for TCE. The level that corresponds
to the one in a million, one additional cancer per, you know, a
million people that would translate to approximately .016
micrograms per cubic meter.
However, the standardized methodology that you use to
detect whether or not you are achieving that level can only get
you down to 2.6 micrograms per cubic meter. However, there are
other sensitive analyses that we can use that can get us down
to .38. I know I am getting very specific in terms of the
numbers. The point I am trying to make is that the risk level
using the latest science that we have would be 1.6 micrograms
per cubic meter.
Now, keeping in mind that other people may be using 5, you
know, micrograms per cubic meter, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that their science is wrong and our science is right. It
all has to do with the risk assessment that we use and the
assumptions that we have made and the risk management decisions
that we have made to come up with these numbers.
But the bottom line is that they are both in the same risk
range. One is 1 times 10 to the minus 6, the other may be 3
times 10 to the minus 6, but they are in the acceptability
range for us, you know, for using those numbers.
Ms. Johnson. I know that industry challenges standards.
Does that have any effect on the final decision?
Mr. Pavlou. Usually I really--I really am not the expert,
you know, in terms of what the industry has, you know,
submitted in terms of their challenges, but I can assure you
EPA, at least on our level, uses the latest and best credible
science every time we need to make a decision.
Ms. Johnson. Okay, thank you very much. Ms. Washington,
what has New York DEC found in its vapor intrusion follow-up
evaluation of closed legacy sites?
Ms. Washington. I think there are 421 of these, and we
probably sampled thousands of houses around the state, and we
put in systems in literally hundreds. The sites that we have in
the mid-Hudson Valley, these legacy sites, we have a number of
them, and right now, these are being evaluated right now. So
that would be Pawling Rubber, Texaco Research Center, Orange
County Landfill, these were all closed a long time ago. They
are undergoing these analyses right now.
Ms. Johnson. You did state that the authorization of the
federal Superfund program should be a top priority. What are
the on-the-ground implications for contaminated sites in New
York if we continue along our current path of not authorizing
the Superfund?
Ms. Washington. Well, the problem doesn't really show up at
the kind of sites we have been talking about today. The high
profile sites with large impacted populations are where the
government is being most aggressive in trying to get things
done. I think it is the smaller sites, a lot of sites in
western New York that are lagging behind perhaps where they
should because these negotiations are protracted. It is easy
for people to hide and, without the threat of the government
going in and cleaning up these sites, they are just sitting
there. But again, they tend to be the smaller sites with a low
profile. I think there is a very good effort on EPA's part and
obviously the DEC to prioritize and get to the sites.
Ms. Johnson. Have you compared the sites here with other
parts of the country?
Mr. Carlson. In terms of what, vapor intrusion?
Ms. Johnson. Vapor intrusion or the number of sites.
Ms. Washington. Well, the number of sites, you know, we are
up there with the other industrial countries. I don't know if I
have ever seen an actual comparison of number of sites, but we
are one of the more contaminated states.
Mr. Pavlou. It is an evolving issue, and I think the more
we test for these sites, the more vapor intrusion sites we are
going to be finding. It is just that it was put off to the
national level only recently in the last couple of years, so we
are gearing up essentially to study vapor intrusion houses
because long before that, one assumed that if the groundwater
was contaminated in lower levels, less than the drinking water
standard, that these vapors wouldn't necessarily intrude and
rise into people's houses, but that's not the case.
Our own experience here in the region because this has been
a high priority for us here in the region, you know, indicates
it doesn't necessarily matter what is in the groundwater you
have, and I think you know past testimony from one of the
previous panelists indicated that in some cases where you may
not detect anything in the groundwater, there remains enough
residual vapor in the soil to allow its rise at some point in
time. Going along the lines of, you know, Val Washington was
indicating we in Region 2 are having the prime responsibility
for evaluating all of the Superfund sites here in New York
State. We have about 103 of those National Priority List sites,
and we have gone through a lot of technical evaluation to
determine whether or not a whole lot of these sites are at
risk.
And if I can give you some statistics, we determined that
29 of those 103 sites be ruled out, that they are not at risk.
We sampled 34 of them. 18 of them we discovered that it doesn't
really matter at this point in time because there was no
development on top of these sites, just taking into
consideration Hopewell Precision, you know, as a Superfund
site. We have a stretch of one and one-half miles long of the
plume that we have to consider. In some sites in rural New York
and upstate New York, there are no houses for us to determine,
and we are doing a remedial investigation for three of them,
and we have an additional 19 to evaluate because we can only--
and we prefer to do this work during the heating season when
the vapor intrusion becomes a little more dominant in terms of
detecting it and allowing it to enter the house because the
ventilation is not there to allow it to escape.
Ms. Johnson. Any health impacts determined?
Mr. Pavlou. Well, usually--I'm not the man to address
that--but usually TCE does affect the central nervous system.
Mr. Carlson. I think we--we work closely with EPA in our
process for dealing with vapor intrusion, and we have a very
similar approach, but we have developed general air guidelines
for several chemicals but particularly for TCE of 5 micrograms
per cubic meter, and this has been questioned is this
protective or not, but what needs to be understood besides we
went through a rigorous toxicological review of all the
available data, and in fact, we developed our number prior to
the NAS, National Academy of Sciences, report coming out, and
their conclusions affirmed the methods and the processes we
used in developing our number.
We also had a peer review by an expert panel that included
toxicologists, chemists and other scientists including a
chemist that is involved in one of the larger vapor intrusion
communities in the state, Endicott, that was brought to us by
IBM.
And we developed a matrix method where we compare indoor
air levels to sub-slab levels, and the way that process works
is we, in fact, do mitigate homes when there is no explicit
evidence of contamination in the home for vapor intrusion. If
there is--are elevated levels of soil gas under the home,
because we see that as a potential, so we do many, many
mitigations on the basis of potential, and in effect, we are
cleaning up when we find less than a part--microgram per cubic
meter in the indoor air, so we have a general air guideline
that says if it is above that we are doing it regardless of
what you want to do, but we can still carry out the mitigations
at much lower levels. Our numbers include both the cancer and
noncancer endpoint, so it is a comprehensive number that deals
with the potential health impacts.
Ms. Washington. When the Department of Health is doing its
analysis in this comparison between the sub-slab and indoor
air, many times we get anomalous results because there are
other sources of TCE besides soil and vapor gas. So we
actually, with the Department of Health, go into the homes,
obviously with the owner's permission, and do a fairly complete
inventory of what is in the cleaning closet and what is in the
garages. There are still a lot of very toxic chemicals in
cleaning products. Some of them have been sitting around for a
long time. But TCE_sometimes you get these anomalous results
with no TCE in the sub-slab, and the household will have fairly
high levels.
Mr. Carlson. And this is an important point. As Val said,
we do comprehensive inventories of what people have in their
homes, and this is one of the reasons we prefer to proceed with
mitigation. This is one of the things that makes sampling
expensive because it is a time-consuming activity, and it is
somewhat intrusive on people's lives, but we find a lot of
chemicals in people's homes.
We also do ambient air, so we know whether or not there is
a source that is other than soil vapor or indoor air, and by
doing this, we're actually getting a really comprehensive
picture of what the sources are and what the potential exposure
are. We have been able to help lots of people clean their
houses out with other chemicals we weren't concerned with
because when we do a sample, we don't just sample for TCE or
PCE, we do a suite of organic chemicals, which would provide
the homeowners with a great deal of information about what may
be in their homes.
Mr. Pavlou. The EPA follows the same protocols and
procedures as well. But just to give you a point of reference,
we have been able to reduce the cost of each mitigation system
down to about a thousand dollars. We have Don Graham here
spending five years up here studying the area, but to give you
an appreciation of how much it costs to do one measurement, one
sampling event here, it is in the neighborhood of about $3,000,
so it makes sense for us from a cost-effective or cost benefit
analysis if we do find something in the soils in the ground to,
you know, instead of us having to go back a year from now and
do the same sampling at a lot more money just to give comfort
to the homeowner and save money for the government as well if
we would install that system.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Carlson, Ms.
Washington, in your opinion, do we need to be doing anything
else to protect human health from exposure to TCE in the area?
Ms. Washington. That's really the question that led us to
our current program. Again, other states are not doing what
we're doing. Massachusetts was mentioned for its environmental
results program. We are doing a similar thing with dry
cleaners. We need to do more, and I don't think self-
certification is enough. I think it has great results, but so
many of these things you really want to get in there and do the
inspections. I think our bulk storage programs have proven
that. So, yes, I mean we have to go back and we have to look at
dry cleaners, we have to look at other possible sources of
vapor. This is emerging_vapor intrusion has become an issue
only in the last few years, and I will say New York is ahead of
the curve. One measure of that is our engineers that have been
at the cutting edge of this work, as well as the DOE, DOH folks
that have studied health implications and so forth are speaking
all over the country. They are invited to conferences all over
the country where people are learning from our experience.
Mr. Carlson. Following up on that, I think one of the
things that gives strength to our program, other than going
back to all the old sites and actually sampling for vapor
intrusion is a principle element of all our investigations.
Many of the other states make their decisions based on a
mathematical model. They have a few sample points and they
crank them into a computer model and say, "Oh, vapor intrusion
is not a problem." Well, we looked at that very closely in the
beginning and we had some data and cranked it in, and it would
say no problem, and we had houses that had significant issues,
and we made the decision that modeling is not our watchword,
sampling is. We are spending the money, as George said, 2,000
to $3,000 per house to sample.
When we have a neighborhood where we know there is an
extensive problem, we don't necessarily sample every home, but
we sample enough to know the pattern, and that's when we go in
with what we call blanket mitigation, and that's in effect what
we are doing with Hopewell Precision.
We don't sample everything. We have a problem here we are
going to address it and we make the offer to all the folks, and
there is a small number that don't want it, and I would just
add there is a spinoff benefit because these are the same
systems that we use to protect homes from radon, and so we get
an additional benefit from that. And a lot of these sites have
been, just by happenstance, in counties in New York State that
have high radon problems, so that has been an additional
benefit.
Mr. Boozman. You mentioned 5 parts per million as far as
the reference for safety, so would you say that in reading the
current literature and visiting with your buddies that are in
the same position that you are in, you know, supposedly keeping
up with these things, are you comfortable with that, with the
current literature?
Mr. Carlson. Well, first, let me correct. It is 5
micrograms per cubic meter in air. This is an air number. There
are a lot of numbers out there. California has a number that is
reported at 0.16. There is other numbers that are, you know, in
that range. But the issue for us is how we are applying it; how
we are using it. In California, they have an air criteria
number of 0.16, but they have a response level for vapor
intrusion of a 120, so we have to be careful when people
enunciate, state a number that is their response number. You
have to look at what they are really doing.
And in our case, this is a general air guideline that we
have developed that says over an individual's entire lifetime,
they should not be exposed on an ongoing basis to levels that
exceed 5 micrograms per cubic meter. We are using that as a
response to what we hope are very short-term exposures, and as
a basis, a jumping off point from beginning the process to
define cleanup.
So to answer your question directly, we believe it is
protective. That number as I said includes both cancer and
noncancer outcomes. If you look at the risk ranges that are
used to develop responses to Superfund sites our number of
five, just as a cancer based number is in the range of .6 times
10 minus 6 to l.5 times 10 minus 5.
Now, in the Superfund program, the risk range, acceptable
risk range for a cleanup, is 10 in minus 6 to 10 in minus 4, so
we are well within that risk range for that fund.
There will be, with time, new science that comes out. If
the new science says that there is a need to change, a need to
reevaluate, we will. Our toxicologists are continuing
evaluating the literature, so we endeavor to stay on top of the
science that is being developed around all the chemicals that
we have as concerns about these waste sites.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Pavlou, I appreciate your work and
appreciate working with the agency, and it sounds like today
that as far as working with the individuals you know, the
collaboration of the state is going very, very well.
There is some concern about, you know, things taking a
while and being perhaps a little bureaucratic, and I can
understand that and that's something that certainly we need to
work on very, very hard.
The other thing that was mentioned was maybe a little bit
in some situations, a little concern about the communication
back and forth as to what we are going to do in the future,
what is being done, and so I would really encourage, and again
I know everybody gets busy. Those are things we can fix very
easily, and I would encourage you to do that, so again, I
appreciate the fact that your scorecard by the gentleman in his
testimony is pretty good, so one thing, though, that does
bother me, we have this TCE thing going on, and in your
testimony, you talked about the original 2001 draft, you know,
so this thing probably was started in the, you know, in the--I
don't know, 1999's or 98's or whatever, so you know, it has
really been dragging on now for nine or ten years.
You do the original study, you go through the whole
process, and then you decide you are going to do another study
because of new information or whatever. We are at the process
now where you had the National Academy of Sciences do a report,
you know, based on that came out in July of 2006, and then you
are talking about having a peer review that, you know, and I
mean at some point, we really do have to make a decision, you
know, based on the evidence.
Now, if you use the idea that things change, we can't make
a decision because it might change in the future, it is changed
or whatever, you just can't operate that way. I mean we do
operate that way sometimes in government, but it really is
frustrating. You know, things in private enterprise, we
wouldn't get anything done if it were done that way. Things
wouldn't move forward, so we need to make a decision. And so I
would really appreciate it if you would convey, you know, my
wishes, and I think the wishes of the Committee that we really
move forward, and you know what I would like, Madam Chair, is
maybe to follow up on this in the future in either written, or
have somebody come in and just visit with us six months from
now. What's the progress, you know, that is being made, and
then just follow up in a reasonable length of time as to the
progress that we are making.
When do you feel like--like you said, this has been going
on for the last eight years at least, what is a reasonable time
that we can expect a report that gives a decision?
Mr. Pavlou. Sir, I will convey those recommendations and
those observations to you and the Chairwoman and Congressman
Hall.
Mr. Boozman. Those aren't unreasonable as a scientist--I
mean those aren't for you, Dr. Carlson, that is not an
unreasonable request, is it?
Mr. Pavlou. Well, I wouldn't view it, you know, to be
unreasonable if it was a simple matter of science. At the same
time, though, I will convey your wishes and your
recommendations and observations to my peers in Washington and
let them know that this was, you know, discussed at this
Congressional hearing, and there was a sense of urgency to
finalize the science as we know it right now.
If there were to be changes in terms of, you know, what
that health assessment should be in terms of the toxicity
values of TCE to make those changes later on, so I will convey
that.
Mr. Boozman. So you have a feeling of when we can get a
final----
Mr. Pavlou. I am not the person in charge of that, sir, so
I will convey that to those who are, you know, working on it in
Washington.
Mr. Boozman. Well, again that's something else. Maybe we
can have a written, you know, question in that regard submitted
to the agency but--and don't misunderstand, I think the feeling
I have gotten today, you know, as far as your work, as far as
the agency's work has been very positive.
And the other thing that you have done is realizing--I mean
you really haven't stuck to that, you have actually acceded
that in some cases in the area in the sense that--so you really
are doing, you know, what you are supposed to, but again, I
think that we do need to get on the stick and get the, you
know, a final thing, so we appreciate your hard efforts.
And then also I am encouraged, the testimony that you
talked about, you know, the Massachusetts model, and it sounds
like you all are even improving on that in preventing--we got
to clean up what we have done. There is no excuse for having
the same thing happen over and over again in the future, so I
appreciate the state being very proactive in that regard and
really becoming involved. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you, Madam Chair. And in
following up on Mr. Boozman's comments, I want to compliment
Director Pavlou on his work. You have a good reputation with
people around here, and I would also note for the record that
we asked for representatives of the EPA from the Washington
office who are in a position to answer those questions to come
here today, and at this point they have declined to join us.
But we are happy to have you here, sir. I wanted to ask a
couple of questions if we could about some of the other sites
that we haven't touched on that are in the 19th Congressional
District. Starting with the Carroll and Dubies--I guess that's
how it is pronounced--the Sewage Disposal site in Port Jervis.
This is a site that is designated as construction complete,
although it has not been deleted from the National Priority
List. Tell us what the current status is.
Mr. Pavlou. The contaminant source areas have been
remediated, and the groundwater at this site is what we call
natural attenuation, in other words, the levels of
contamination are not that high as to require active treatment,
but through a reasonable amount of time, we should be able to
achieve, you know, acceptable levels.
I would say that--and once we achieve the contaminant
levels, you know, to the point where they meet groundwater
standards, then we should be able to say that that remedy is
effective and we should be able to proceed to delete that site
from the National Priorities List. I would say that we do not
anticipate at this point in time that we should be able to do
so in the next five years.
I would like to stress because, you know, before we were
talking about the groundwater and how long it takes for it to
get cleaned up, unfortunately, in the beginning of the program,
our experience was that if we, you know, have contamination of
the groundwater, we put an extraction, a pump and treat system,
we should be able to clean up the groundwater over a 30-year
period.
Our experience so far indicates that we were very, very
wrong. We were not even near, you know, in terms of how long it
will take to, you know, treat groundwater and to achieve
drinking water levels. I would say it wouldn't be unusual for
it to take a hundred years to achieve drinking water levels.
Once you contaminate the groundwater, it remains contaminated
above drinking water standards for a long, long time.
Mr. Hall of New York. So in other words, we shouldn't
contaminate it if we can possibly help not doing so in the
first place.
Mr. Pavlou. We should prevent it, yes.
Mr. Hall of New York. Let me just veer off from my previous
line of questioning and just ask what is the proper legal
method for disposing of TCE for an industrial operation.
Mr. Pavlou. At this point in time, we have the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, as we know it, that if you
do have TCE contamination, there are permitted facilities that
should be taken to properly dispose of it. There are, you know,
people who recycle TCE.
Mr. Hall of New York. Do you have any idea what the costs
are for----
Mr. Pavlou. I do not know the costs, no.
Mr. Hall of New York. Is it more costly than dumping----
Mr. Pavlou. Oh, yes, far, far more.
Mr. Hall of New York. So basically an industry that is
making a profit and dumping TCE or any similar chemical on the
ground is doing it to save money.
Mr. Pavlou. Well, that or they----
Mr. Hall of New York. Or they don't realize what they are
doing.
Mr. Pavlou. Yes, they are doing it recklessly I would say.
Mr. Hall of New York. So that's the theory behind the tax
on the polluters that was dropped in 1995_allowed to expire in
1995_the theory that the polluter pays, is that they are making
a profit in the first place and therefore they are the ones who
should pay for the cleanup.
Let me jump back to the Katonah Municipal Well. That site
has been deleted----
Mr. Pavlou. That has been deleted from the National
Priorities List, yes.
Mr. Hall of New York. So that one is gone.
Mr. Pavlou. Yes.
Mr. Hall of New York. The Nepera Chemical site in Orange
County, once again, is not expected to be done within five
years, is that correct?
Mr. Pavlou. That one we selected a remedy for, you know,
the remediation of the site back in September of 2007 on that
one. The site is located in Hamptonberg, New York. The remedy
that we selected for that site called for the treatment of the
soils as well as the remediation of the groundwater as well, so
we did select the remedy.
We are in negotiations with, you know, the company that
caused the contamination in Nepera to do the work as the
decision of the EPA dictated. I would imagine once we complete
the negotiations, it would take them about a year or so to
design the remedy and then another few years to do the
construction work.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you. Is there any evidence of
vapor intrusion either in Katonah or the Nepera site?
MR. PAVLOU: I can provide the information to you later on,
but all of the--I don't have it at hand right now but--there is
none.
Mr. Hall of New York. Okay, and Warwick Landfill?
Mr. Pavlou. Warwick Landfill, I don't believe so either.
Mr. Hall of New York. A couple of quick, you know, a couple
of sentences, a status report on that.
Mr. Pavlou. On that one, it is a landfill, as you know, and
we selected the remedy and it is a 28-acre landfill and we
capped the landfill, and we constructed a liner back in
September of 1998 and we continued with the operation and
monitoring of the program, and this is work performed by the
potentially responsible parties. It is costing about $44,000 a
year to maintain the cap that was placed on the landfill and we
did deleted this site from the National Priorities List in July
of 2001.
Mr. Hall of New York. I wanted to ask Dr. Carlson, Director
Carlson, do low amounts of these VOC's have a greater effect on
infants or people with compromised immune systems?
Mr. Carlson. Well, infants and people with compromised
systems and the elderly are more sensitive to them, but our
guidelines are developed, our guidelines and standards are all
developed with those segments of the population in mind, so
they are very carefully considered when we develop our numbers.
Mr. Hall of New York. Who pays for the implementation of
the PHA plan, and is there any federal posture?
Mr. Carlson. Implementation of the PHA plan is part of the
overall process of the cleanup program, and so we do some of
the work with our cooperative agreement with ATSDR, some of the
work is done as part of a remedy for the site, which is either
then paid for by the EPA, DEC, or the responsible party. If it
is a responsible party site, the responsible party is paying
for it. If they are not available, and EPA or DEC is carrying
out the remedy and they presumably will look for cost recovery
if that is an option. According to the kind of numbers that Ms.
Washington suggested earlier about our effectiveness in
recovering the cost for carrying out these remedies is very
good.
Mr. Hall of New York. And with regard to the review of the
existing outcomes for evaluating vapor intrusion impacts, are
there any preliminary findings, could you speculate that those
findings may be consistent with what we already know about the
health impacts?
Mr. Carlson. You are talking about what we anticipate
coming out of the studies that we are doing now. No, I wouldn't
endeavor to speculate because we don't have the data yet. The
preliminary information that we gathered from questionnaires
that we did send all the individuals that we asked to
participate in our program did not indicate unusual numbers, so
that's why we are looking at the data that are available in our
registries and that address broader aspects of the health of
the residents for our evaluation.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you. And Deputy Commissioner
Washington, I wanted to ask you, in your testimony, you
referred to the incentive for polluters to stall the process of
reaching a settlement. This is a problem that is created by the
failure to reauthorize the Superfund program.
Are you encountering this in response to New York's program
as well? Would the Superfund reauthorization bolster New York's
program?
Ms. Washington. New York is a fairly robust program. We
have had significant funding appropriated by the legislature
for our state Superfund program, so we don't have the same
need.
Mr. Hall of New York. There seems to be strong state and
federal cooperation on identified sites. Does this same spirit
of cooperation extend to preventive monitoring and enforcement?
Ms. Washington. I believe it does. I have to tell you that
I haven't been that involved in the enforcement program but
yes.
Mr. Hall of New York. As far as you know.
Ms. Washington. As far as I know, we have a very good
relationship with the EPA.
Mr. Hall of New York. I have always been proud that New
York is leading on issues of environmental protection and the
ongoing efforts to create parameters for vapor intrusion and
TCE exposure. Is there any reason why these models would not be
transferable to the federal level?
Ms. Washington. I would say that they are transferable. I
think we had this discussion with the EPA and EPA has been
involved in the ongoing development of strategies.
Mr. Hall of New York. So as the EPA figures out what the
standard is--it should consider, among other things, the
information that comes from New York State and other states.
Mr. Carlson. It is important if you are talking about
nationwide, that is one thing, but I think our experience in
New York, and I believe it is similar in New Jersey, that
basically in the Region 2 area we are carrying out programs
that are consistent. We not only work cooperatively, but our
approach is very, very similar and our outcomes are also
similar.
Mr. Pavlou. All decision matrixes that New York State DOH
as well as DEC develop which are extensively, you know,
discussed with EPA. The EPA shares their decision-making
matrix, so we are consistent and we do have and enjoy excellent
working relationships between the three agencies. Nothing gets
done without the three of us agreeing on something. Otherwise
we don't proceed.
Mr. Hall of New York. I am glad you all get along so well.
Mr. Pavlou. We do.
Mr. Hall of New York. Ms. Washington, how are the
investigatory and financial burdens between EPA and New York
State shared on sites that eventually make it onto the NPL
list?
Ms. Washington. Normally they end up_[portion missing from
transcript: Normally, New York pays a 10% share for
construction, with EPA paying for investigation and design.
Normally, the State takes over operation and maintenance costs.
If New York takes the lead on remediation_which is pretty rare
these days_then we pick up all costs and try to get them back
from the PRPs.]
Mr. Hall of New York. And lastly, I wanted to ask Director
Pavlou a question. The big site that we have spoken of that
runs through the 19th District, but which one doesn't think
about a lot because it is so big and it is not the immediate
impact that the Hopewell Precision has, for instance, is the
Hudson River. It is a Superfund site and is in the process of
being mediated. Can you tell us anything, are you involved in
that or does that go north of your----
Mr. Pavlou. I am very, very involved in that site.
Mr. Hall of New York. Good.
Mr. Pavlou. I am glad to say on the Hudson River we will be
dredging in the next year in 2009. We were able to secure an
agreement with General Electric back in September of 2005 for
them to undertake the work in the first phase of the dredging
of the river.
As we speak, they are building what I would label as a
chemical city to treat the sediments as they are dredging from
the Hudson River. They are going to be taking all of these
sediments to a 100-acre site on the banks of the Champlain
Canal. They are going to be dewatering those sediments, and
then they are going to be transporting those sediments to
Texas, of all places, via rail.
Mr. Hall of New York. Not to the Alamo.
Mr. Pavlou. No, no. I forget the name of the county, but it
is towards New Mexico, you know, that boundary, but the
sediment dewatering facility will be ready and will be tested
by the end of this calendar year.
We were able to withstand legal challenges by the local
municipality up there to the point where we wanted, you know--
the district court, it was appealed in a high court, and the
appeal decision was made back in January of this year endorsing
EPA's work as well, so without any further legal challenges, we
should be able to proceed with the dredging.
Mr. Hall of New York. This is what they call environmental
dredging, it is a type of suction.
Mr. Pavlou. Yes, it is.
Mr. Hall of New York. It is a big mechanical----
Mr. Pavlou. It is not mechanical dredging. It is going to
be secure environmental dredging such that the clamps that they
are going to be using are going to be airtight that it secures
everything in there, such that there is suspension. It is going
to be minimized, but we also developed what we call engineering
performance standards such that if there were to be
resuspension exceeding the drinking water standards in the
river, it is our standard that they need to achieve we would
essentially slow down the operations or go back and find out
what is causing those violations.
We developed, you know, quality of life standards for the
communities up there such that whatever we do is not going to
affect their way of life or their health in any way. So this is
one of the, you know most studied rivers in the country, and I
am glad to say that eventually we are proceeding to the point
where dredging will begin and the implementation of the
dredging will begin next year.
Mr. Hall of New York. Thank you and all of the witnesses
for being here and for the work that you are doing and look
forward to continuing. The thought of a hundred years of
cleanup is boggling my mind. But it makes this all the much
more important whether we catch pollution as it happens,
whether it is household hazardous waste, or whether it is
industrial solvents that are in use in some process in some
industry. We must make sure that they don't enter the
groundwater to begin with so we don't have to go down this
road. And thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and let me
thank Dr. Carlson and Ms. Washington and Mr. Pavlou for your
testimony and the other witnesses as well. This completes our
public hearing, and we do plan to follow up in six-months.
Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Can I just say one thing again? I want to
thank Mr. Hall for inviting us here. We are on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee also and work together in that area in
helping you guys out with our veterans in trying to make sure
that we, you know, do the benefits that we promised you in the
past and we appreciate your efficacy in that area also. Thank
you very much.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, and that ends our public hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42186.048