U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

42–186 PDF 2008

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 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

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 

vi 


42186.001
vii 


42186.002
viii 


42186.003
ix 


42186.004
x 


42186.005
xi 


42186.006
xii 


42186.007
xiii 


42186.008
xiv 


42186.009
xv 


42186.010
xvi 


42186.011
xvii 


42186.012
(1) 

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 drycleaning 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. 

2 

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, 

3 

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. 

4 

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. 

5 

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. 

6 

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 

7 

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 

8 

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 welldocumented. 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? 

9 

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 

10 

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 

11 

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 contamiVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:44 Feb 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42186 JASON
12 

nants. 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-today 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-today 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. 

13 

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 compliVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:44 Feb 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42186 JASON
14 

ance 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. 

15 

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 slowmoving 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 

16 

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 onethird 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 

17 

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 propVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:44 Feb 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42186 JASON
18 

erties 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 thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:44 Feb 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42186 JASON
19 

sands 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. 

20 

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 longterm 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 

21 

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 

22 

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. 

23 

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 midHudson 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-theground 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 panVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:44 Feb 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42186 JASON
24 

elists 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. 

25 

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 

26 

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 

27 

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. 

28 

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 

29 

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 

30 

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 

31 

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. 

32 

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—— 

33 

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.] 

34 


42186.013
35 


42186.014
36 


42186.015
37 


42186.016
38 


42186.017
39 


42186.018
40 


42186.019
41 


42186.020
42 


42186.021
43 


42186.022
44 


42186.023
45 


42186.024
46 


42186.025
47 


42186.026
48 


42186.027
49 


42186.028
50 


42186.029
51 


42186.030
52 


42186.031
53 


42186.032
54 


42186.033
55 


42186.034
56 


42186.035
57 


42186.036
58 


42186.037
59 


42186.038
60 


42186.039
61 


42186.040
62 


42186.041
63 


42186.042
64 


42186.043
65 


42186.044
66 


42186.045
67 


42186.046
68 


42186.047
69 

Æ 


42186.048