New Bedford Harbor
Sean Tepfer
July 30, 2008
Buzzard’s Bay
Hurricane Wall
New
Bedford
Harbor
Background



City of New Bedford, MA originated as a
fishing and whaling port in the early 19th
Century
Early 1900s: a variety of factories, textile
mills, and fish processing plants lined the
Acushnet River, a 1000 acre urban tidal
estuary that served as the city’s main
waterway.
No control on water pollution until the
1970s
Water Pollution



Local businesses used the river and
adjacent New Bedford Harbor to
dump industrial waste.
This led to this estuary and harbor to
be one of the most polluted
waterways in the country.
Specifically, the presence of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
PCBs




PCBs are chlorinated, odorless, semi-volatile
organic compounds characterized by high thermal
and chemical stability.
The same characteristics that make them useful
to industry also cause them to persist in the
environment and if ingested, to accumulate in the
fat cells of fish, animals and humans.
They have low vapor pressure and are nearly
insoluble in water. They adhere to soil or
sediment and, at high concentrations, will
become airborne and get into the rain and
spread.
Their manufacture was banned by the EPA in
1978.
Effect of ban on economy



High levels of PCBs in fish caused Mass. Dept of
Public Health to impose fishing restrictions and
prohibited lobstering.
Due to loss of fishing industry and subsistence
opportunities, local economy suffered, which also
led to loss of several local factories, thus
compounding the problem.
By 1990, unemployment was up to 12%, 16.8%
of the population was below the poverty level,
less than half of kids finished high school, and
37% of the population spoke a language other
than English at home (most were Portuguese).
EPA in the Area


The EPA's Superfund program was
established in 1980 to locate,
investigate, and clean up hazardous
waste sites throughout the United
States.
Gayle Garman, Project Manager at
Region I of the EPA began studying
the area as part of the Superfund.
EPA decides to clean-up





Studies by EPA determined a very high
concentration of PCBs in the harbor which
became known as the “Hot Spot.”
Total mass of PCBs in the Hot Spot sediments
was estimated at 120 tons.
Goal of clean up was to reduce PCB levels in
various areas.
Initially, improving conditions in the Hot Spot
area was first priority due to health risks.
Also, because the area is an estuary with
constant water movement, the documented risk
of spread from this area was high.
EPA requirements by statute
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Overall protection of human health and
the environment.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility and
volume.
Short-term effectiveness (during
construction and implementation)
EPA requirements by statue
(cont’d)
6. Ease of implementation, technical
and administrative feasibility.
7. Cost.
8. State acceptance.
9. Community acceptance (gauged by
public participation during comment
periods and public meetings.
Clean-up Planning

Several alternatives were studied in
accordance with EPA policy:
1)Dredging and on-site incineration
2)Removal, solidification and
eventual disposal in an off site
federally approved landfill 3)
Dredging and treatment with solvent
extraction 4)No action
Clean-up Planning


All alternatives were evaluated using
nine requirements under EPA statute
Once decision by EPA was made, it
was presented to the state and the
community for review.
CWG Looks at Alternatives

CWG examined the three most
feasible options:
1)Dredging and subsequent
incineration to destroy PCBs in the
sediments
2)Dredging and treating and/or
burying the sediments
3)Capping the sediments
Decision to Dredge and Incinerate

In 1990, CWG put the alternatives to
a vote and the 9 members present
voted 6-3 for dredging and on-site
incineration followed by on site
disposal of the treated sediment
(incinerator ash)
EPA’s Decision

EPA evaluated against their nine
requirements and chose that removal
and incineration of contaminated Hot
Spot sediments to protect public
health and the environment and to
permanently reduce the migration of
contaminants throughout the harbor
site was the best method.
Possible results



If properly performed, 99.9999% of PCBs
would be removed. There was the
possibility if the incineration was not
performed properly, other toxins (lead and
cadmium) could be released to the
environment.
Some members of CWG were concerned
about this.
EPA said safety equipment would shut
down incinerator if this occurred.
Dissenting Voices Emerge


EPA and Mayor believed community
was represented by CWG and all that
was left was education and
implementation.
They recognized a small minority
who disagreed with incineration, but
believed they would wane and that
they were not representative of
community at large.
HARC


Hands Across the River Coalition (HARC)
was born when small opposition leaders
began advocating that the federal govt.
was trying to push a quick, cheap fix to
the problem which was being implemented
on a minority non-English speaking group
in their community.
This group regarded science as an elitist
discipline and the EPA as a group of
government elitists.
Results of HARC




HARC initiated a letter writing campaign to local,
state and federal officials including EPA Project
Manager Garman.
The group became stronger, larger and more
powerful through use of monthly protests on the
bridge and distribution of flyers.
Residents believed they were being railroaded
into accepting an inappropriate risk.
September of 1992- charges of toxic racism were
appearing in the pages of the Boston Globe as
well as accusations that the EPA was exposing
New Bedford to risks it would not impose on a
more affluent, white community.
EPA Responds to HARC


The EPA, felt that the community had
become so confrontational, narrowly
focused, and unwilling to compromise that
they had forgotten the importance of
cleanup to minimize ongoing and future
risks to their health.
Garman and the EPA had invested years
and millions of dollars to find the safest
and most effective method of clean up.
This represented a potential waste of
millions of dollars when they could not
start the project.
HARC Gains Widespread Support

Greenpeace and other environmental
organizations claimed residents
would be exposed to hundreds of
toxic emissions which were
carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic
and 10000 times more deadly than
cyanide. This caused nearby
communities to take interest in the
issue.
More Support for HARC



By 1993 HARC was supported by US rep
Barney Frank, Senator Kerry and Senator
Kennedy. They proposed that the Clinton
administration stop the EPA.
Mass Dept of Environmental Protection
became involved as the stalemate left tons
of unprotected and untreated toxic waste
in the harbor.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration began to take notice of
issue (NOAA)
Gaining community support




By mid-1993, over 100 residents packed city hall
chambers and pushed for city ordinance to ban
incineration.
The prospect of a lengthy, costly, and highly
confrontational litigation was not appealing to
anyone at the EPA especially with a relatively new
Presidential administration.
EPA was confident they could win a lawsuit. They
also did not believe that HARC had resources for
an extended lawsuit.
Garman became frustrated because no one
seemed to understand that the longer the clean
up was delayed, the longer the residents were
exposed.
City Ordinance

On July 15, 1993 New Bedford City
Council passed a city ordinance,
“prohibiting the transport [of] ovens,
incinerators, mobile incinerators,
mobile water treatments plants,
devices or mechanisms of any kind
used in incineration or water
treatment through the streets, air
space or waterways of New Bedford.”
EPA Response to Ordinance



Garman checked with local authorities to
see if they intended to enforce the
ordinance.
Local police told her that they would not
block the roadway, in fact, the New
Bedford City Solicitor had advised them
not to enforce the ordinance.
The Solicitor did not believe that the
ordinance was constitutional.
EPA Higher Up Reaction

Higher ups in the EPA encouraged
Garman to send in the trucks with
US Marshals as their escort, but she
declined as it would only create
greater controversy.
Garman’s Frustration



Garman was frustrated because she felt
an open and honest dialogue had been
done with the community through the
CWG.
Now, opposition groups refused to engage
in dialogue with her or the EPA.
She continued to be frustrated as the
longer the clean up was delayed, the more
PCBs would make it into the open ocean,
as well as more PCBs in the harbor would
be released into the air.
Community’s Frustration



Community could only focus on fears
of results of incineration.
They had been living for decades
with the PCBs in the harbor and the
EPA had been planning their clean up
for at least ten years.
They could not understand why a
delay of a few months or even a year
or two would be a problem.
The Conflict Escalates


EPA filed a lawsuit against the city of
New Bedford regarding the
ordinance.
In addition, they informed the city
that regulations allowed them to fine
the city up to $25,000/day for
causing the delay in the clean up.
HARC’s Response


HARC filed a civil suit against the EPA
for negligence in their failure to hold
public hearings when planning the
clean up.
They also filed their intention to file a
federal lawsuit alleging the EPA was
violating the civil rights of the
citizens of New Bedford.
Deadlock



Following all of this back and forth legal
action, a Federal judge ordered the City to
allow the EPA full access to the site until a
formal hearing could be held later in the
fall.
This court order allowed the wastewater
treatment equipment to pass through the
city, without opposition.
Garman and others at EPA were still
confident they would easily win any
lawsuit.
An Intervention

US Rep. Barney Frank began
threatening the Clinton
administration with a vote against
crucial NAFTA legislation in late 1993
unless the President got the EPA to
reevaluate the project. He was
backed up by Senators Kerry and
Kennedy.
EPA Response



This situation had degenerated and the EPA’s
original goals: protecting human health and
minimizing ongoing contamination of the harbor’s
ecosystem would be poorly served in an ongoing
legal battle.
As a result, EPA Administrator, Carol Browner,
directed EPA leaders in the region to address the
community opposition.
An informal round table was proposed to improve
the public’s knowledge of the incineration issues,
but community leaders were still skeptical.
The Forum


Facing additional pressure from the Mayor
of New Bedford, the Mass. Dept. of
Environmental Protection and various
state politicians, Browner directed Garman
to engage a third party mediator to help
resolve the dispute.
This decision was definitely a “political
decision” rather than one based on the
technical benefits to human health.
ODR


The Mass. Dept. of Environmental
Protection (DEP) contacted the Mass.
Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), a state
agency specializing in conflict resolution,
and asked for assistance in selecting a
mediator and identifying the stakeholders.
The ODR took over planning and
organizing the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site Community Forum
(referred to as the Forum) and identified
seven major groups as the primary
stakeholders:
Stakeholders







Three citizen’s groups (HARC and two
other neighboring community groups)
Elected town officials
The Office of the Mayor of New Bedford
Elected state officials
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
The DEP
The EPA.
Mediation



After a long series of interviews with
representatives from each stakeholder, J.
Michael Keating was selected by
consensus as the mediator.
The first meeting with the mediator and
stakeholders was finally held on 12/7/93,
five months after the city ordinance had
been passed.
Keating was able to establish better
communication and less hostility between
groups.
The Forum’s Involvement


Garman and others argued that the
decision of what method to use to
cleanup the harbor was no longer
one of what was the best scientific
method, but what was the best
political method.
The Forum became instrumental in
the decision of how to clean up the
harbor.
Garman’s Departure



Garman became frustrated with the fact
that all of these delays caused further
exposure to the community.
As a result, she resigned from the EPA and
joined NOAA in Seattle, WA.
She was replaced by David Dickerson who
continued to show preference for
incineration. However, HARC and other
community leaders continued to oppose
this course of action.
Victory? for HARC


In September of 1995, the EPA accepted
what seemed inevitable and abandoned all
plans to incinerate harbor sediments.
This seemed to be a victory for some, the
Forum now faced the daunting task of
selecting an alternative treatment
technology, as well as overseeing the
second stage of the cleanup effort.
WHAT HAPPENED??????


Dredging of the 14,000 cubic yards
of sediment from the 5 acre hot spot
areas was accomplished from April
1994 to September 1995, with the
dredged sediment temporarily stored
in a lined and covered holding pond.
Seawater removed during the
dredging process was treated on
scene and returned to the harbor.
Update cont’d




In April 1999, EPA changed alternatives to
dewatering and off-site landfilling as the
final component for the hot spot
remediation.
Transportation of the hot spot sediment to
an offsite TSCA permitted landfill started
in December 1999 and was completed in
May 2000.
Same practices have continued to local
areas outside of the “Hot Spot” beginning
in 2004 and continuing to the present.
In 2005, capping was begun.
Discussion Questions




What could Garman and other EPA officials
have done to ensure community support
from the start?
Should HARC and other community
organizations been able to change the
scientifically proven best path for the
project?
What should have been the involvement of
Rep. Frank as well as Senators Kerry and
Kennedy?
Was it better to have a best political
solution rather than the best solution?