New Bedford HarborNew Bedford Harbor

Sean TepferSean Tepfer

July 30, 2008July 30, 2008

New

Bedford

Harbor

Buzzard’s Bay

Hurricane Wall

BackgroundBackground

City of New Bedford, MA originated as a City of New Bedford, MA originated as a fishing and whaling port in the early 19fishing and whaling port in the early 19thth CenturyCentury

Early 1900s: a variety of factories, textile Early 1900s: a variety of factories, textile mills, and fish processing plants lined the mills, and fish processing plants lined the Acushnet River, a 1000 acre urban tidal Acushnet River, a 1000 acre urban tidal estuary that served as the city’s main estuary that served as the city’s main waterway. waterway.

No control on water pollution until the No control on water pollution until the 1970s1970s

Water PollutionWater Pollution

Local businesses used the river and Local businesses used the river and adjacent New Bedford Harbor to adjacent New Bedford Harbor to dump industrial waste. dump industrial waste.

This led to this estuary and harbor to This led to this estuary and harbor to be one of the most polluted be one of the most polluted waterways in the country.waterways in the country.

Specifically, the presence of Specifically, the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

PCBsPCBs PCBs are chlorinated, odorless, semi-volatile PCBs are chlorinated, odorless, semi-volatile

organic compounds characterized by high organic compounds characterized by high thermal and chemical stability. thermal and chemical stability.

The same characteristics that make them useful The same characteristics that make them useful to industry also cause them to persist in the to industry also cause them to persist in the environment and if ingested, to accumulate in the environment and if ingested, to accumulate in the fat cells of fish, animals and humans. fat cells of fish, animals and humans.

They have low vapor pressure and are nearly They have low vapor pressure and are nearly insoluble in water. They adhere to soil or insoluble in water. They adhere to soil or sediment and, at high concentrations, will sediment and, at high concentrations, will become airborne and get into the rain and become airborne and get into the rain and spread. spread.

Their manufacture was banned by the EPA in Their manufacture was banned by the EPA in 1978. 1978.

Effect of ban on economyEffect of ban on economy High levels of PCBs in fish caused Mass. Dept of High levels of PCBs in fish caused Mass. Dept of

Public Health to impose fishing restrictions and Public Health to impose fishing restrictions and prohibited lobstering. prohibited lobstering.

Due to loss of fishing industry and subsistence Due to loss of fishing industry and subsistence opportunities, local economy suffered, which also opportunities, local economy suffered, which also led to loss of several local factories, thus led to loss of several local factories, thus compounding the problem. compounding the problem.

By 1990, unemployment was up to 12%, 16.8% of By 1990, unemployment was up to 12%, 16.8% of the population was below the poverty level, less the population was below the poverty level, less than half of kids finished high school, and 37% of than half of kids finished high school, and 37% of the population spoke a language other than the population spoke a language other than English at home (most were Portuguese).English at home (most were Portuguese).

EPA in the AreaEPA in the Area

The EPA's Superfund program was The EPA's Superfund program was established in 1980 to locate, established in 1980 to locate, investigate, and clean up hazardous investigate, and clean up hazardous waste sites throughout the United waste sites throughout the United States. States.

Gayle Garman, Project Manager at Gayle Garman, Project Manager at Region I of the EPA began studying Region I of the EPA began studying the area as part of the Superfund. the area as part of the Superfund.

EPA decides to clean-upEPA decides to clean-up Studies by EPA determined a very high Studies by EPA determined a very high

concentration of PCBs in the harbor which concentration of PCBs in the harbor which became known as the “Hot Spot.”became known as the “Hot Spot.”

Total mass of PCBs in the Hot Spot sediments was Total mass of PCBs in the Hot Spot sediments was estimated at 120 tons.estimated at 120 tons.

Goal of clean up was to reduce PCB levels in Goal of clean up was to reduce PCB levels in various areas. various areas.

Initially, improving conditions in the Hot Spot area Initially, improving conditions in the Hot Spot area was first priority due to health risks. was first priority due to health risks.

Also, because the area is an estuary with Also, because the area is an estuary with constant water movement, the documented risk constant water movement, the documented risk of spread from this area was high. of spread from this area was high.

EPA requirements by statuteEPA requirements by statute

1.1. Overall protection of human health and Overall protection of human health and the environment.the environment.

2.2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).

3.3. Long-term effectiveness and Long-term effectiveness and permanence.permanence.

4.4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility and Reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume.volume.

5.5. Short-term effectiveness (during Short-term effectiveness (during construction and implementation)construction and implementation)

EPA requirements by statue EPA requirements by statue (cont’d)(cont’d)

6. Ease of implementation, technical 6. Ease of implementation, technical and administrative feasibility.and administrative feasibility.

7. Cost. 7. Cost.

8. State acceptance.8. State acceptance.

9. Community acceptance (gauged by 9. Community acceptance (gauged by public participation during comment public participation during comment periods and public meetings. periods and public meetings.

Clean-up PlanningClean-up Planning

Several alternatives were studied in Several alternatives were studied in accordance with EPA policy: accordance with EPA policy: 1)Dredging and on-site incineration 1)Dredging and on-site incineration 2)Removal, solidification and 2)Removal, solidification and eventual disposal in an off site eventual disposal in an off site federally approved landfill 3) federally approved landfill 3) Dredging and treatment with solvent Dredging and treatment with solvent extraction 4)No actionextraction 4)No action

Clean-up PlanningClean-up Planning

All alternatives were evaluated using All alternatives were evaluated using nine requirements under EPA statute nine requirements under EPA statute

Once decision by EPA was made, it Once decision by EPA was made, it was presented to the state and the was presented to the state and the community for review. community for review.

CWG Looks at AlternativesCWG Looks at Alternatives

CWG examined the three most CWG examined the three most feasible options: feasible options:

1)Dredging and subsequent 1)Dredging and subsequent incineration to destroy PCBs in the incineration to destroy PCBs in the sediments sediments

2)Dredging and treating and/or 2)Dredging and treating and/or burying the sediments burying the sediments

3)Capping the sediments3)Capping the sediments

Decision to Dredge and IncinerateDecision to Dredge and Incinerate

In 1990, CWG put the alternatives to In 1990, CWG put the alternatives to a vote and the 9 members present a vote and the 9 members present voted 6-3 for dredging and on-site voted 6-3 for dredging and on-site incineration followed by on site incineration followed by on site disposal of the treated sediment disposal of the treated sediment (incinerator ash)(incinerator ash)

EPA’s DecisionEPA’s Decision

EPA evaluated against their nine EPA evaluated against their nine requirements and chose that requirements and chose that removal and incineration of removal and incineration of contaminated Hot Spot sediments to contaminated Hot Spot sediments to protect public health and the protect public health and the environment and to permanently environment and to permanently reduce the migration of reduce the migration of contaminants throughout the harbor contaminants throughout the harbor site was the best method. site was the best method.

Possible resultsPossible results

If properly performed, 99.9999% of PCBs If properly performed, 99.9999% of PCBs would be removed. There was the would be removed. There was the possibility if the incineration was not possibility if the incineration was not performed properly, other toxins (lead and performed properly, other toxins (lead and cadmium) could be released to the cadmium) could be released to the environment. environment.

Some members of CWG were concerned Some members of CWG were concerned about this. about this.

EPA said safety equipment would shut EPA said safety equipment would shut down incinerator if this occurred. down incinerator if this occurred.

Dissenting Voices EmergeDissenting Voices Emerge

EPA and Mayor believed community EPA and Mayor believed community was represented by CWG and all that was represented by CWG and all that was left was education and was left was education and implementation. implementation.

They recognized a small minority They recognized a small minority who disagreed with incineration, but who disagreed with incineration, but believed they would wane and that believed they would wane and that they were not representative of they were not representative of community at large. community at large.

HARCHARC

Hands Across the River Coalition (HARC) Hands Across the River Coalition (HARC) was born when small opposition leaders was born when small opposition leaders began advocating that the federal govt. began advocating that the federal govt. was trying to push a quick, cheap fix to was trying to push a quick, cheap fix to the problem which was being the problem which was being implemented on a minority non-English implemented on a minority non-English speaking group in their community. speaking group in their community.

This group regarded science as an elitist This group regarded science as an elitist discipline and the EPA as a group of discipline and the EPA as a group of government elitists.government elitists.

Results of HARCResults of HARC HARC initiated a letter writing campaign to local, HARC initiated a letter writing campaign to local,

state and federal officials including EPA Project state and federal officials including EPA Project Manager Garman. Manager Garman.

The group became stronger, larger and more The group became stronger, larger and more powerful through use of monthly protests on the powerful through use of monthly protests on the bridge and distribution of flyers. bridge and distribution of flyers.

Residents believed they were being railroaded Residents believed they were being railroaded into accepting an inappropriate risk. into accepting an inappropriate risk.

September of 1992- charges of toxic racism were September of 1992- charges of toxic racism were appearing in the pages of the Boston Globe as appearing in the pages of the Boston Globe as well as accusations that the EPA was exposing well as accusations that the EPA was exposing New Bedford to risks it would not impose on a New Bedford to risks it would not impose on a more affluent, white community. more affluent, white community.

EPA Responds to HARCEPA Responds to HARC The EPA, felt that the community had The EPA, felt that the community had

become so confrontational, narrowly become so confrontational, narrowly focused, and unwilling to compromise that focused, and unwilling to compromise that they had forgotten the importance of they had forgotten the importance of cleanup to minimize ongoing and future cleanup to minimize ongoing and future risks to their health. risks to their health.

Garman and the EPA had invested years Garman and the EPA had invested years and millions of dollars to find the safest and millions of dollars to find the safest and most effective method of clean up. and most effective method of clean up. This represented a potential waste of This represented a potential waste of millions of dollars when they could not millions of dollars when they could not start the project. start the project.

HARC Gains Widespread SupportHARC Gains Widespread Support

Greenpeace and other environmental Greenpeace and other environmental organizations claimed residents organizations claimed residents would be exposed to hundreds of would be exposed to hundreds of toxic emissions which were toxic emissions which were carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic and 10000 times more deadly than and 10000 times more deadly than cyanide. This caused nearby cyanide. This caused nearby communities to take interest in the communities to take interest in the issue.issue.

More Support for HARCMore Support for HARC

By 1993 HARC was supported by US rep By 1993 HARC was supported by US rep Barney Frank, Senator Kerry and Senator Barney Frank, Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy. They proposed that the Clinton Kennedy. They proposed that the Clinton administration stop the EPA.administration stop the EPA.

Mass Dept of Environmental Protection Mass Dept of Environmental Protection became involved as the stalemate left became involved as the stalemate left tons of unprotected and untreated toxic tons of unprotected and untreated toxic waste in the harbor. waste in the harbor.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began to take notice of Administration began to take notice of issue (NOAA)issue (NOAA)

Gaining community supportGaining community support By mid-1993, over 100 residents packed city hall By mid-1993, over 100 residents packed city hall

chambers and pushed for city ordinance to ban chambers and pushed for city ordinance to ban incineration. incineration.

The prospect of a lengthy, costly, and highly The prospect of a lengthy, costly, and highly confrontational litigation was not appealing to confrontational litigation was not appealing to anyone at the EPA especially with a relatively new anyone at the EPA especially with a relatively new Presidential administration. Presidential administration.

EPA was confident they could win a lawsuit. They EPA was confident they could win a lawsuit. They also did not believe that HARC had resources for also did not believe that HARC had resources for an extended lawsuit. an extended lawsuit.

Garman became frustrated because no one Garman became frustrated because no one seemed to understand that the longer the clean seemed to understand that the longer the clean up was delayed, the longer the residents were up was delayed, the longer the residents were exposed.exposed.

City OrdinanceCity Ordinance

On July 15, 1993 New Bedford City On July 15, 1993 New Bedford City Council passed a city ordinance, Council passed a city ordinance, “prohibiting the transport [of] ovens, “prohibiting the transport [of] ovens, incinerators, mobile incinerators, incinerators, mobile incinerators, mobile water treatments plants, mobile water treatments plants, devices or mechanisms of any kind devices or mechanisms of any kind used in incineration or water used in incineration or water treatment through the streets, air treatment through the streets, air space or waterways of New Bedford.”space or waterways of New Bedford.”

EPA Response to OrdinanceEPA Response to Ordinance

Garman checked with local authorities to Garman checked with local authorities to see if they intended to enforce the see if they intended to enforce the ordinance. ordinance.

Local police told her that they would not Local police told her that they would not block the roadway, in fact, the New block the roadway, in fact, the New Bedford City Solicitor had advised them Bedford City Solicitor had advised them not to enforce the ordinance. not to enforce the ordinance.

The Solicitor did not believe that the The Solicitor did not believe that the ordinance was constitutional.ordinance was constitutional.

EPA Higher Up ReactionEPA Higher Up Reaction

Higher ups in the EPA encouraged Higher ups in the EPA encouraged Garman to send in the trucks with US Garman to send in the trucks with US Marshals as their escort, but she Marshals as their escort, but she declined as it would only create declined as it would only create greater controversy.greater controversy.

Garman’s FrustrationGarman’s Frustration

Garman was frustrated because she felt an Garman was frustrated because she felt an open and honest dialogue had been done open and honest dialogue had been done with the community through the CWG.with the community through the CWG.

Now, opposition groups refused to engage Now, opposition groups refused to engage in dialogue with her or the EPA. in dialogue with her or the EPA.

She continued to be frustrated as the She continued to be frustrated as the longer the clean up was delayed, the more longer the clean up was delayed, the more PCBs would make it into the open ocean, PCBs would make it into the open ocean, as well as more PCBs in the harbor would as well as more PCBs in the harbor would be released into the air. be released into the air.

Community’s FrustrationCommunity’s Frustration

Community could only focus on fears Community could only focus on fears of results of incineration. of results of incineration.

They had been living for decades They had been living for decades with the PCBs in the harbor and the with the PCBs in the harbor and the EPA had been planning their clean up EPA had been planning their clean up for at least ten years. for at least ten years.

They could not understand why a They could not understand why a delay of a few months or even a year delay of a few months or even a year or two would be a problem. or two would be a problem.

The Conflict EscalatesThe Conflict Escalates

EPA filed a lawsuit against the city of EPA filed a lawsuit against the city of New Bedford regarding the New Bedford regarding the ordinance.ordinance.

In addition, they informed the city In addition, they informed the city that regulations allowed them to fine that regulations allowed them to fine the city up to $25,000/day for the city up to $25,000/day for causing the delay in the clean up. causing the delay in the clean up.

HARC’s ResponseHARC’s Response

HARC filed a civil suit against the EPA HARC filed a civil suit against the EPA for negligence in their failure to hold for negligence in their failure to hold public hearings when planning the public hearings when planning the clean up.clean up.

They also filed their intention to file a They also filed their intention to file a federal lawsuit alleging the EPA was federal lawsuit alleging the EPA was violating the civil rights of the violating the civil rights of the citizens of New Bedford. citizens of New Bedford.

DeadlockDeadlock

Following all of this back and forth legal Following all of this back and forth legal action, a Federal judge ordered the City to action, a Federal judge ordered the City to allow the EPA full access to the site until a allow the EPA full access to the site until a formal hearing could be held later in the formal hearing could be held later in the fall. fall.

This court order allowed the wastewater This court order allowed the wastewater treatment equipment to pass through the treatment equipment to pass through the city, without opposition. city, without opposition.

Garman and others at EPA were still Garman and others at EPA were still confident they would easily win any confident they would easily win any lawsuit. lawsuit.

An InterventionAn Intervention

US Rep. Barney Frank began US Rep. Barney Frank began threatening the Clinton threatening the Clinton administration with a vote against administration with a vote against crucial NAFTA legislation in late 1993 crucial NAFTA legislation in late 1993 unless the President got the EPA to unless the President got the EPA to reevaluate the project. He was reevaluate the project. He was backed up by Senators Kerry and backed up by Senators Kerry and Kennedy.Kennedy.

EPA ResponseEPA Response This situation had degenerated and the EPA’s This situation had degenerated and the EPA’s

original goals: protecting human health and original goals: protecting human health and minimizing ongoing contamination of the harbor’s minimizing ongoing contamination of the harbor’s ecosystem would be poorly served in an ongoing ecosystem would be poorly served in an ongoing legal battle. legal battle.

As a result, EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, As a result, EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, directed EPA leaders in the region to address the directed EPA leaders in the region to address the community opposition. community opposition.

An informal round table was proposed to improve An informal round table was proposed to improve the public’s knowledge of the incineration issues, the public’s knowledge of the incineration issues, but community leaders were still skeptical.but community leaders were still skeptical.

The ForumThe Forum

Facing additional pressure from the Mayor Facing additional pressure from the Mayor of New Bedford, the Mass. Dept. of of New Bedford, the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection and various Environmental Protection and various state politicians, Browner directed Garman state politicians, Browner directed Garman to engage a third party mediator to help to engage a third party mediator to help resolve the dispute. resolve the dispute.

This decision was definitely a “political This decision was definitely a “political decision” rather than one based on the decision” rather than one based on the technical benefits to human health. technical benefits to human health.

ODRODR The Mass. Dept. of Environmental The Mass. Dept. of Environmental

Protection (DEP) contacted the Mass. Protection (DEP) contacted the Mass. Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), a state Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), a state agency specializing in conflict resolution, agency specializing in conflict resolution, and asked for assistance in selecting a and asked for assistance in selecting a mediator and identifying the stakeholders. mediator and identifying the stakeholders.

The ODR took over planning and The ODR took over planning and organizing the New Bedford Harbor organizing the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Community Forum Superfund Site Community Forum (referred to as the Forum) and identified (referred to as the Forum) and identified seven major groups as the primary seven major groups as the primary stakeholders:stakeholders:

StakeholdersStakeholders

Three citizen’s groups (HARC and two Three citizen’s groups (HARC and two other neighboring community groups)other neighboring community groups)

Elected town officialsElected town officials The Office of the Mayor of New BedfordThe Office of the Mayor of New Bedford Elected state officialsElected state officials The National Oceanic and Atmospheric The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)Administration (NOAA) The DEP The DEP The EPA. The EPA.

MediationMediation

After a long series of interviews with After a long series of interviews with representatives from each stakeholder, J. representatives from each stakeholder, J. Michael Keating was selected by Michael Keating was selected by consensus as the mediator. consensus as the mediator.

The first meeting with the mediator and The first meeting with the mediator and stakeholders was finally held on 12/7/93, stakeholders was finally held on 12/7/93, five months after the city ordinance had five months after the city ordinance had been passed. been passed.

Keating was able to establish better Keating was able to establish better communication and less hostility between communication and less hostility between groups. groups.

The Forum’s InvolvementThe Forum’s Involvement

Garman and others argued that the Garman and others argued that the decision of what method to use to decision of what method to use to cleanup the harbor was no longer cleanup the harbor was no longer one of what was the best scientific one of what was the best scientific method, but what was the best method, but what was the best political method. political method.

The Forum became instrumental in The Forum became instrumental in the decision of how to clean up the the decision of how to clean up the harbor.harbor.

Garman’s DepartureGarman’s Departure

Garman became frustrated with the fact Garman became frustrated with the fact that all of these delays caused further that all of these delays caused further exposure to the community.exposure to the community.

As a result, she resigned from the EPA and As a result, she resigned from the EPA and joined NOAA in Seattle, WA.joined NOAA in Seattle, WA.

She was replaced by David Dickerson who She was replaced by David Dickerson who continued to show preference for continued to show preference for incineration. However, HARC and other incineration. However, HARC and other community leaders continued to oppose community leaders continued to oppose this course of action. this course of action.

Victory? for HARCVictory? for HARC

In September of 1995, the EPA accepted In September of 1995, the EPA accepted what seemed inevitable and abandoned all what seemed inevitable and abandoned all plans to incinerate harbor sediments. plans to incinerate harbor sediments.

This seemed to be a victory for some, the This seemed to be a victory for some, the Forum now faced the daunting task of Forum now faced the daunting task of selecting an alternative treatment selecting an alternative treatment technology, as well as overseeing the technology, as well as overseeing the second stage of the cleanup effort. second stage of the cleanup effort.

WHAT HAPPENED??????WHAT HAPPENED??????

Dredging of the 14,000 cubic yards Dredging of the 14,000 cubic yards of sediment from the 5 acre hot spot of sediment from the 5 acre hot spot areas was accomplished from April areas was accomplished from April 1994 to September 1995, with the 1994 to September 1995, with the dredged sediment temporarily stored dredged sediment temporarily stored in a lined and covered holding pond. in a lined and covered holding pond.

Seawater removed during the Seawater removed during the dredging process was treated on dredging process was treated on scene and returned to the harbor.scene and returned to the harbor.

Update cont’dUpdate cont’d In April 1999, EPA changed alternatives to In April 1999, EPA changed alternatives to

dewatering and off-site landfilling as the dewatering and off-site landfilling as the final component for the hot spot final component for the hot spot remediation. remediation.

Transportation of the hot spot sediment to Transportation of the hot spot sediment to an offsite TSCA permitted landfill started in an offsite TSCA permitted landfill started in December 1999 and was completed in December 1999 and was completed in May 2000.May 2000.

Same practices have continued to local Same practices have continued to local areas outside of the “Hot Spot” beginning areas outside of the “Hot Spot” beginning in 2004 and continuing to the present.in 2004 and continuing to the present.

In 2005, capping was begun. In 2005, capping was begun.

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions What could Garman and other EPA officials What could Garman and other EPA officials

have done to ensure community support have done to ensure community support from the start?from the start?

Should HARC and other community Should HARC and other community organizations been able to change the organizations been able to change the scientifically proven best path for the scientifically proven best path for the project?project?

What should have been the involvement of What should have been the involvement of Rep. Frank as well as Senators Kerry and Rep. Frank as well as Senators Kerry and Kennedy?Kennedy?

Was it better to have a best political Was it better to have a best political solution rather than the best solution?solution rather than the best solution?