Stockbridge Updates is spending time and columnar inches reporting on the PCB clean-up activities because they will have a profound impact on Stockbridge.
Headlines
According to a letter received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 4, 2024, in Stockbridge, trucks transporting PCBs will travel Routes 183 and 102, including the Main Street section.
At public meetings, it was estimated by General Electric Corporation (GE) and the EPA that there will be between 20 – 47 trucks per day for 13 years.
1. In the June 4 letter, EPA disapproved of transportation of PCBs on Route 183 into Lenox and Route 102 into West Stockbridge making it more likely that PCB-laden trucks will travel roads in Stockbridge including Main Street.
2. All PCBs are dangerous; however, GE will decide which trucks are carrying more dangerous PCBs and which are carrying less dangerous. The more dangerous PCBs will travel on Main Street in Stockbridge, continue on Route 102 to the Mass Pike entrance. The “less” dangerous will travel Main Street in Stockbridge onto Route 7 North to the Lee dump.
3. The impact on Stockbridge tourism will be far greater than the $1.5 million given Stockbridge in compensation. Lee will continue to sue for adequate compensation. Lee has hired experts to calculate the danger of the amount and manner of transport while Stockbridge is still being told there is little or no impact on Stockbridge. (See SU, June 1, 2024, reprint of the Berkshire Eagle letter to the editor by Steve Shatz, Rest of River (ROR) Representative for Stockbridge.
To understand the full impact of this project, please read on:
In his letter, Steve Shatz, our only representative to the Rest of River committee (ROR), stated, “The phase potentially affecting Stockbridge will come at the end of the project for a period estimated to last nine months.”
Presumably, he is referring to the dredging in Stockbridge, which may occur at the end of the clean-up, or not at all, because the toxic location in Stockbridge may be capped rather than dredged.
The real impact on Stockbridge will be a function of the truck traffic – an estimated 20 – 47 trucks per day for 13 years. The toxic contents will be covered with tarps, secured by bungee cords. According to Mark Hermanson, chemist and renowned expert on PCBs, hired by the Housatonic River Initiative (HRI), the inescapable result is that it will allow PCBs to become airborne along the routes. Apart from the obvious exposure to humans, animals, and the environment, does anyone seriously believe that this will not affect tourism? (Enjoy your cocktail on the porch of the Red Lion Inn, while trucks loaded with PCBs roll by).
As of June 4, 2024, for the first time, we have published information on where the truck routes will be. Next, we must learn the order of dredging at the sites. That order has not been determined.
An example: according to the EPA letter and the GE report, when Rising Pond is dredged, trucks would travel north on Route 183 to Route 102, and then turn right because they are forbidden to remain on 183 into Lenox. They will travel on Route 102/Church Street and turn left onto follow to the “T”, turn left onto Main Street. The trucks would diverge at the end of Main Street. Those with the “less” dangerous PCBs would turn left onto Route 7 North to the dump in Lee. The trucks with the most dangerous would continue on Route 102 to the Mass Pike entrance in Lee.
It is our view that this will have a major impact on our village. We do not know if it will occur as Steve Shatz says, “at the end of the project for a period estimated to last nine months.” It will occur as soon as transportation begins and the order of activating the dredging sites is determined. The impact will be a function of the order of dredging, and no one knows that yet
There are two major questions:
a) Why did anyone in the five towns sign an agreement without knowing the truck routes, the sites, and the order in which the sites would be dredged?
b) Why did anyone sign a contract with a distribution formula, that according to Shatz, “…was designed to recognize the disproportionate impact on Lenox and Lee…?” when no one had the information to determine the extent of the impact. It would be appropriate if the formula did recognize the disproportionate impact, but no one knew what that was.
It is our contention that there is more than one impact. The existence of a PCB dump in Lee is one, far-reaching impact. But we must recognize that the dredging and the transportation of toxic materials also has far-reaching and potentially lethal impacts. We must recognize $1.5million will not begin to compensate Stockbridge. It was as if the 5 towns signed a contract with a blank check. They signed the agreement without the information necessary to accurately determine the impact.
The Benefit to GE
The agreement that Stockbridge, Lee, Lenox, Great Barrington, and Sheffield signed did not include compensation for the decades of damage to our waterways and to our inhabitants prior to any effort to cleanup. PCBs were invented in the last century. It was 80 years ago, during WWII, that there was widespread use of PCBs. It has been at least 50 years since GE started dumping toxic waste in Silver Lake, the Housatonic River, and the adjacent lands. 50 years that the river has flooded the land and golfers at Stockbridge Golf Club have been strolling through toxic waste and creating toxic-laden divots.
We will never know how many people have suffered from cancer as a direct result of GE’s blatant disregard for their welfare. Or how many dogs sickened and died. Or how many fish died or how many birds.
50 years or more of poisoning our environment, but this agreement drew a line in the sand and only considered compensation for the impact of the clean-up. No compensation for the pollution!
Who signed an agreement that ignored the totality of the problem and why?
Carole Owens
Executive Editor
Editor’s Note: Both from June 4, 2024, click these links for the letter from the EPA and the GE Transportation and Disposal Plan.
In the contributor’s section is the EPA letter responding to and refuting some of the contentions in Steve Shatz’ letter.
