Method for cleanup of PCBs yet to be decided

By Jessica Centers
Star Staff Writer
10-18-2004

Pam Scully admits she speaks in acronyms and government jargon unintelligible to those who don’t eat, sleep and breathe Superfund. Ask her to slow down, and she’ll spell out the point of the piles of documents the Environmental Protection Agency and Solutia toss back and forth. She’ll even draw you a diagram of how all those plans and studies lead to the single most important decision that will be made for Anniston’s PCBs cleanup, the decision over which she says the community may have the most influence. "We haven’t picked a remedy yet," Scully, the EPA project manager for the Anniston PCBs site, explained. For now, no geographical boundary, dollar amount, or method has been tacked onto Anniston’s PCBs cleanup. The EPA’s proposal and final decision on all those questions is still years away. PCBs, now listed as a suspected carcinogen, were manufactured until the 1970s at Anniston’s former Monsanto plant, now owned by Solutia. In August 2003, a cleanup agreement was signed by Solutia, Pharmacia and the EPA to remove the chemical from local waterways and properties. Since Solutia filed for bankruptcy last year, Monsanto agreed to pay cleanup costs while Solutia employees continue to lead the project. Which company will pay for the cleanup going forward will be determined in bankruptcy court. For each of the four areas that have to be addressed — the plant site, off-site residential, off-site non-residential and Choccolocco Creek — a "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study" will determine the extent of the contamination, the associated health and ecological risks and outline the options for remedying the problems. Based on that, the EPA will propose a cleanup method and let the public know how much it will cost the company. Their proposals for each of the four units will be followed by public comment periods. Scully estimates the proposal is about two years away for the residential, non-residential and plant site, and likely longer for Choccolocco Creek. She expects much of the cleanup to take five years with completion in 10 years. Even though Anniston is not a Superfund site, it’s going through the same process. The only difference is that polluters, not the taxpayers, are paying for the cleanup, she said. A northern example The $460 million PCBs cleanup of the Hudson River is an example of just how long the Superfund cleanup process can take. For 30 years ending in the late 1970s, General Electric Company discharged as much as 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River from its capacitor manufacturing plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, N.Y. A 200-mile stretch of river was first listed as a Superfund site in 1983. Twenty years later, the PCBs remain in the river sediment. It wasn’t until 2000, after a 10-year study of the river’s contamination, that the EPA announced its proposed remedy — a $460 million dredging project for which G.E. would be responsible. Scully wouldn’t offer a guess at the cost of Anniston’s cleanup, but said it could cost as much as or more than the Hudson project. The brunt of Anniston’s cleanup costs will be in dealing with the waterways. Scully said it’s possible that Choccolocco Creek’s size would make it cost considerably less than the Hudson River to clean up. At the same time, she said, there may be more accessible sediment in Choccolocco Creek, and that could make Anniston’s cleanup cost more. The Hudson’s cleanup isn’t expected to begin until 2006. Chris Ballantyne, a member of the Community Advisory Group and Friends of a Clean Hudson, said many factors came together to drag out the cleanup, including local politics, a very reluctant responsible party, and the process itself. Unlike the companies responsible for Anniston’s PCBs, which are now bound by court order to conduct and pay for the cleanup, General Electric has yet to be pinned down, Ballantyne said. G.E. has agreed to pay for certain aspects of the cleanup, but has not committed to restoring the river, he said. The equation grows An issue of foundry fill could complicate who pays for Anniston’s long-term cleanup. The EPA has been investigating Anniston foundries as the source of area lead contamination in the form of fill dirt in residential yards. Solutia also has filed a lawsuit against companies that owned current and former foundries, alleging they were responsible for the spread of PCBs in fill dirt and should share cleanup costs. If, by the time the EPA selects a remedy, Solutia can show additional parties are responsible for PCBs contamination, then the agency would bring in additional parties to pay for it. Scully said the EPA has not reached a point where it would say any of the PCBs contamination found could not have come from the Solutia plant. As the EPA’s cleanup decisions for Anniston approach, Scully anticipates the biggest issue is going to be Solutia’s two landfills. Residents, including David and Shirley Baker of Community Against Pollution, have said they want the landfills moved. Solutia says the landfills are safe. The company monitors groundwater and surface water migrating away from the landfills and reports the results to the EPA. Scully said she’s never seen a large landfill moved, but that will be looked at as an option in the feasibility study. The EPA will consider the community’s concerns, as well as the cost and risks associated with their alternatives. At a site in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Scully said, some community members wanted a landfill moved, A feasibility study showed it would have cost $2 billion and taken 20 years. The EPA decided to cap it. Finding the answers Scully said the most technical comments, ones the EPA can use scientific means to address, will hold the most weight. In that department, Larry King, the new technical advisor to the Community Advisory Group to the Consent Decree, said he can help. With a grant awarded from Solutia to the West Anniston Foundation, King has been hired as the independent technical resource for the community. King said the EPA’s proposed remedy will be one of the most important documents for the community to understand and comment on, and he can help people interpret the technical aspects. In the meantime, he’s available to answer questions they have about plans as they are developed and the sampling and cleanup that is underway. At tonight’s CAG meeting, King is going to give a presentation to explain the basics of the site investigation and cleanup process. Scully admits that even she must rely on experts to understand some of the documents. "At some point, you have to accept that someone who knows what they’re doing has looked at it and it’s OK," she said. Most of the data that goes into the investigation that the EPA will use to make their decision is gathered and analyzed by Solutia contractors and reviewed by the EPA. The exception is the human health risk assessment, which the EPA will produce itself. All documents, as they are finalized, will be made available at the Anniston-Calhoun County Public Library and EPA office.

About Jessica Centers

Jessica Centers, a University of Missouri graduate, covers business for The Anniston Star.