Thoughts on the GE Dredging of the Hudson
On August 6, 1975, Hudson Riverkeeper Tom Whyatt and I hopped into his VW bus and headed for EPA Region II headquarters at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan to file a freedom of information request for all documents related to the discharge of PCBs into the Hudson River.
We had learned that on August 8, in a story slated for the front page of The New York Times, Richard Severo would report a warning from New York State Environmental Conservation Commissioner Ogden R. Reid and Health Commissioner Robert P. Whalen that the public should avoid eating striped bass from the Hudson River due to PCB contamination. "Federal and state researchers have found that the fish contain dangerously high amounts of PCB, a toxic chemical used in a wide range of manufacturing processes,” wrote Mr. Severo, and Reid cited two General Electric plants in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls as a likely cause.
Thirty-four years later, on May 15, 2009, Andrew Revkin reports in The Times that General Electric has begun a massive dredging program to remove tons of PCB contaminated mud from the upper Hudson. See Andy’s Times story here and his post on his Dot Earth blog here.
Over the years, most news coverage has focused on the political struggles between river activists and the company. The argument between these adversaries has been along the familiar lines of the pros and cons, environmental and economic, of the actual dredging, and the intent and legitimacy of the Federal superfund program.
But the role of government is at the heart of the story. If the history of the Hudson River PCB case is ever
written, the ineffectiveness of the regulatory and political processes
will be its most revealing chapter.
Eight US presidents and eleven EPA administrators have now presided
over the PCB issue, starting with Richard Nixon and his EPA, which was aware that the GE discharges, newly permitted by Washington and
New York under the 1972 Clean Water Act, would contaminate Hudson River
fish beyond safe levels. During the course of these extended, stalled,
and postponed deliberations, officials have been alternately courageous
and craven in the face of environmental and GE representatives,
depending on the direction of the political winds.
In an ironic twist given the apparent platforms of their parties, the
Democratic Clinton administration added at least four years of delay to
the PCB ruling due to its indecisiveness, while Republican Governor
George E. Pataki expended significant political capital with Republican
President George W. Bush resulting in the EPA order for General
Electric to cleanup.
Internal Federal and state documents almost certainly tell a fuller
story of incompetence, foot-dragging and political dealing along the
long, tortured road to dredging. It remains to be seen whether phase
two of the cleanup will follow the same flawed, regulatory path.
Meanwhile, the PCB issue literally has passed from one generation to
the next. But this has also brought a positive aspect. Today, General
Electric is one of the most technologically advanced companies in the
world -- very different than the consumer manufacturer it was in 1975.
Its bragging rights are no longer toaster ovens. It has the in-house
genius to invent, and re-invent, medical diagnostic, storage battery,
and wind power technologies and more. We are fortunate the GE of 2009
is the GE in charge of the cleanup.
Environmentalists should bridge the gap between that genius and the
future of the Hudson. The rank and file of GE’s innovators was not
even teen-age when the PCB issue first broke. They are from the first
generation raised on environmental awareness during their schooling.
They are part of the brain trust on which the nation must rely if the
marketplace is going to help solve the complex environmental problems
caused by the collective impact of all of our lives. It is timely and
wise to retire the notion that the GE company at-large needs to be the
permanent enemy of the entire Hudson River.
When Tom Whyatt and I received the responses to our 1975 freedom of information requests to the EPA, and to requests we filed later in the week with the state environmental conservation department, we learned that Federal and state regulators knew of PCB contamination years in advance of Richard Severo’s article. In one 1973 memo, an EPA official predicted that, given the amount of PCBs that the Federal-state permit allowed GE to discharge, contamination in striped bass could reach 35 parts per million, seven times the allowable FDA limit at the time. Sampling conducted two years later found bass with concentrations as high as 37 parts per million.
The continuing focus on good guys versus bad guys on the Hudson must not cloud our
judgment about where crucial breakdowns have occurred in the PCB case.
Ultimately, the public trust was in the hands of Federal and state
policy and decision-making processes that took 36 years, dating to
1973, to make the inevitable cleanup happen.
It is heartening that the PCB dredging program is finally underway, and that
GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt says he stands behind a company commitment to
restore the river from contamination (though, as Andy reports, GE and government officials still
differ on the extent necessary). The start of the
cleanup is a victory for the Hudson River and all those who worked long
and hard on the PCB issue, including GE's engineers on the ground.
But solutions to the complex environmental challenges that lie ahead cannot await
the passing of a generation. Federal and state officials
must examine the historical performance of their agencies in the PCB case and institute the
reforms that will prevent such inordinate delays and careless
decision-making from happening again.
