It seems I’ve known about this PCB problem forever, but I don’t really know the details. I recall that you were quite involved at the beginning of this process, so I’m hoping you will be able to answer my questions: when did the PCB contamination start, how was it discovered, and what have been the steps leading up to this final cleanup?
— Posted by Morna Crites-Moore
The best primer on PCBs and the Hudson can be gleaned from visiting the dedicated PCB web pages of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the General Electric Company. These are not necessarily dueling sites, though they may disagree on some points. You can put together a good regulatory time line as well as the current status of the cleanup from the information they present.
The PCB controversy has a long history. The issue first came to public attention in August 1975 in an article in The New York Times in which Richard Severo reported that the New York State environmental conservation commissioner, Ogden R. Reid, and the health commissioner, Dr. Robert P. Whalen, had issued a public warning to avoid eating striped bass from the Hudson River because of PCB contamination. Mr. Reid cited two General Electric plants in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls as a likely cause.
From the start, the PCB story generated extraordinary controversy. It was the environmental movement’s fall from innocence that ushered in the toxic age. It predated the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky, Times Beach in Missouri and Love Canal in New York, and contributed to a national awareness about the growing threat of toxic pollutants and past industrial disposal practices.
The PCB story hit particularly hard on the Hudson. By 1975 the river had already started showing the positive signs of restoration, thanks in part to the 1972 federal Clean Water Act; environmental organizations were cheering the river’s revival.
The controversy did not end at G.E.’s discharges, however. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had given the company a permit to discharge up to 30 pounds per day of Pyranol, a trade name for polychlorinated biphenyls. As a result, a state administrative law judge, Abraham Sofaer, in 1976 cited both “corporate abuse” and “regulatory failure” in the state case against G.E.
Since much of the information you seek is reported online, I want to take some space here to talk about the passage of time. Eight United States presidents and 11 E.P.A. administrators have now presided over the PCB issue, starting with Richard M. Nixon and his Environmental Protection Agency, which was aware that the G.E. discharges, newly permitted by Washington and New York, would contaminate Hudson River fish beyond safe levels. This was demonstrated in documents I received under the Freedom of Information Act in August 1975.
For the next three decades, extended, stalled and postponed deliberations followed while public agencies alternately moved forward and backward depending on the direction of the political winds. In an ironic twist given the apparent platforms of party platforms, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, expended significant political capital with a Republican president, George W. Bush, resulting in the E.P.A. order for General Electric to clean up.
In the intervening years, the PCB issue literally 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. We are fortunate that the G.E. of 2009 is the G.E. conducting the cleanup. And the current E.P.A., which administers the cleanup under the Superfund program, possesses the commitment to set a clear path for the dredging, a welcome change.
But solutions to the complex environmental challenges that lie ahead cannot await the passing of a generation. The federal and state governments should examine the historical performance of their agencies in the PCB case and institute reforms that will prevent politics from causing such inordinate delays and careless decision-making in the future.
Is the level of PCBs that are released accidentally into the water during dredging being monitored, and how is this release minimized?
— Posted by Todd
The most common public concern about the cleanup is that PCBs currently concentrated in the muds of the upper Hudson will be released into the river during dredging and flow downstream. That is also reflected in the comments posted here about downriver water quality, swimming, and even Bruno the dog. The state has posted online advice for swimmers. It is aimed at humans. I will leave it up to pet owners whether their animals should abide by lesser or higher standards.
PCBs do not dissolve in water. Instead, they cling to particles such as river mud and sediment. Dredged materials that escape and flow south can carry PCBs with them. The threat of “resuspension” of PCBs has been the subject of intense debate for many years. In response, E.P.A. has created performance and monitoring standards for the dredging project. If you navigate to this Web page, the right hand column, “Stay Informed,” includes useful links for more information, including a listserv to which you can subscribe.
The dredging operation must be shut down if PCBs downstream of the activity can be detected at greater than 500 parts per trillion, which is the PCB standard applied by the E.P.A. under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. According to G.E.’s testing, there have been no episodes that have exceeded this standard. In the event of an episode, G.E. is obligated to inform downriver communities, in particular the city of Waterford, which is the northernmost community that takes its drinking water from the Hudson.
The E.P.A.’s Hudson River community involvement coordinator, Kristen Skopeck, can be reached at (866) 615-6490 or skopeck.kristen@epa.gov. Ms. Skopeck and the E.P.A. maintain a blog about the project.
General Electric maintains a hot line as well: (518) 792-4087.
What is the current PCB contamination level in striped bass from the Hudson River stock, and what are the hopes and/or expectations for lowering contamination following dredging? Last I read that the Food and Drug Administration set a maximum of two parts per million for PCBs in striped bass. Do you foresee Hudson stock striped bass eventually having a contamination level significantly below two parts per million?
— Posted by Paul Greenberg
The issue of fish contamination is a central topic of the PCB issue and a central rationale in the E.P.A. cleanup order. The concentrations of PCBs in Hudson River striped bass have changed over the years and have been monitored by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In 1975, the mean concentration of PCBs was 17.39 parts per million and reached a maximum of 50.07 p.p.m. By 2007, the mean concentration was 0.89 parts per million, with a maximum of 3.56.
But, according to the E.P.A., “Although PCB levels in fish have decreased over the past 20 years, the downward trend has leveled off. In fact, average PCB levels in the fish of the upper Hudson have not changed significantly in recent years. They are still high enough to trigger restrictions on eating fish and a ban on commercial fishing.” The E.P.A.’s target level for PCBs in fish is 0.05 p.p.m.
New York State annually publishes its fish advisories for the Hudson River and other state waters in its hunting and fishing guides, public handouts and online. The State Department of Health also maintains a hot line: (800) 458-1158, ext. 27815.
The contamination of striped bass immediately elevated the urgency of the PCB issue, giving it a prominent spot in The New York Times in August 1975. The article reported Conservation Department studies that showed concentrations in bass of 37 p.p.m. based on testing that had been conducted two years earlier. At the time, the allowable concentration was five p.p.m., according to the Food and Drug Administration. The standard was later lowered to two p.p.m.
The Hudson is a vital spawning river for ocean-bound stripers and, back then, an important striped bass commercial fishery in its own right. Mr. Reid, the environmental conservation commission, banned net fishing for bass in the fall, along with commercial fishing for American eel, catfish, perch and carp, and Dr. Whalen, the health commissioner, eventually issued a health warning regarding the consumption of all other fish. I was given the sad task of immediately relaying this information to river fishing camps.
To date, the largest tragedy associated with the PCB issue is the decimation of the Hudson River commercial fishery. In spring 1975, there were approximately 150 to 200 commercial fishermen and crew members working the Hudson River. With the fishing bans, those number began to drop. When I fished, in the 1980, ‘81 and ‘82 seasons, there were still about 100. This year, there were probably fewer than a dozen. Many fishermen have passed away, and the next generation is not taking up the trade.
In tough economic times the Hudson River commercial fishery was once an economic safety net. No longer. With fishing limited only to American shad and blue crab, it is not an economically viable occupation to young fishermen.
Precise dates when fish will show a post-cleanup recovery from PCB contamination can only be speculated upon. There is no reliable research that can provide a certain date for a certain concentration. Based on past correlations between reductions in fish contamination and the halting of direct discharges and leaks of PCBs into the river, E.P.A. scientists believe there will be a corresponding correlation once the cleanup significantly reduces the downriver flow of PCB contaminated sediments.
How do you explain that in poll after poll, those living nearest (read: on) the river least favor this dredging project. I’m sure you’ve seen the plotted charts demonstrating this. Indeed, the most vocal support comes from those who live way out of sight (and mind) from the water.
— Posted by OCULUS
I disagree with your premise. I live in a riverside community where there has been widespread support for the dredging project, and it was not alone. But you are correct in your suggestion that the PCB issue has had a polarizing effect on the public and on river communities — not only geographic communities but interest communities as well.
There is an important political and social study to be found in the 34-year public debate about PCBs and the Hudson River. The issue pitted environmentalists against G.E., and often against state and federal administrations. Most Hudson River commercial fishermen did not support the cleanup, while many sport fishermen did. The river’s Congressional delegation was not unanimous on the issue. Over time, the controversy drove new supporters to river groups and cast G.E., a major state employer, as the river’s enemy. Meanwhile, communities in the vicinity of the contamination and the G.E. plants rallied to the company’s side.
The most profound divide over all was between upriver and downriver. The major environmental organizations that supported the cleanup, such as Clearwater, Riverkeeper, and Scenic Hudson, are in and draw most of their membership from the river’s lower 100 miles. The lower river dominated the issues that propelled the movement for the cleanup — contamination of striped bass and other commercial species, river recreation, potential impacts on subsistence fishers, and four communities that take drinking water from the river.
But the epicenter of both the contamination and the larger G.E. community is the area of Saratoga, Washington and Warren Counties, some 200 miles upriver.
And the core issue behind the execution of the E.P.A. cleanup order — the toxicity of PCBs — was also the issue that legitimately frightened upriver citizens who were concerned about the suspected carcinogen being dug up and transported through their communities. Oddly, once the E.P.A. order was finalized and G.E. agreed to design and build its extensive dredging, dewatering, treatment and transportation facilities, the company faced a very wary local public whose opposition to dredging had once been supported by G.E.
This seems to be turning around. There appears to be a transition in upriver public opinion. For one thing, the dredging program is starting to resemble a local stimulus package during hard times. G.E. says that as many as 500 jobs will be created by July, with half drawn from the greater capital region. In addition, the company has gone to great lengths to present the cleanup in a positive light, even promoting it with signs and in front-page articles, some featuring the G.E. chairman and chief executive, Jeffrey R. Immelt, pledging a successful cleanup.
I have been to the Hudson River in the Fort Edward and Locks 7-8 area before and since the commencement of dredging. The formerly sleepy upriver Hudson is now like a miniature, bustling Mississippi of barges, tugs, survey and work boats. Night crews seek out places to eat and have a beer.
There may be a budding “dredging tourism” industry afoot. I saw people gathered at nearby parks and landings to watch all the activity. And, by any measure, the implementation of the plan and construction of facilities is an impressive accomplishment by G.E. One cannot help but get the impression that a touch of local pride is starting to take hold.
While sculling down the Anacostia River in Washington this past Saturday I hit a log and flipped my boat. Three days later I’m still washing off the grime from what has been described as “America’s dirtiest river.” … It astounds me that raw sewage and garbage are freely dumped into a river that runs through our nation’s capital. What can other communities do to persuade their local officials (or the federal government) to increase financing for cleaning, when no “G.E.” exists
— Posted by Matthew
Though your question is not specifically about PCB dredging, it is an important one. For the most part, our federal environmental laws are independent of one another. They do not provide, nor do they pretend to provide, an integrated, comprehensive approach to pollution. It is perhaps their greatest weakness.
General Electric is conducting the dredging of the Hudson River under the Superfund Law, which is intended to regulate the cleanup of toxic waste sites that meet the law’s requirements.
Pollution of the Anacostia comes mostly under the purview of the 1972 Clean Water Act, which regulates direct and indirect discharges of pollutants and regulates other human activities that are potentially harmful to the nation’s waters. But even a river can be declared a Superfund site if the resident contamination in its bed or along its shores is severe enough and can be remedied, as is the case with the Hudson.
The first goal of the Clean Water Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters by 1985. Some of the companion goals called for: attaining a level of water quality that properly supports fish, shellfish and wildlife by July 1, 1983; the elimination of polluted runoff; and a prohibition on toxic discharges in toxic amounts. Though the Clean Water Act has improved the quality of many waterways, the law has not achieved these central goals. It is surreal that our national target date for ending the discharge of pollutants is 24 years ago.
I have visited the Anacostia River many times. Its condition is a national disgrace and disproportionately affects the most economically stressed neighborhoods in the nation’s capital. Imagine, at one time there was an active commercial fishery for American shad that dated back to the colonialists. Today, the Anacostia fails virtually every quality standard for an American waterway.
Most members of Congress, both senators and representatives, are unaware of the date-specific goals of the Clean Water Act, the law’s failings, or the condition of the historic river right down the street. But the District of Columbia is exclusively governed by federal law, unlike the states, most of which have authority from the E.P.A. to administer the Clean Water Act under their own laws and regulations. This gives Congress and the Obama administration a unique opportunity to prove what the Clean Water Act can still do — and right in Washington.
The good news is that there are hardworking agencies, schools and citizen projects aimed at improving the Anacostia, and focusing federal attention on the river’s plight. If you haven’t already, add your voice to one of those initiatives. For example, check out the Earth Conservation Corps. Do not lose faith. The restoration of the Hudson required much more than a PCB cleanup, was mostly driven by less notorious controversies than PCBs, and citizens have led the way for more than 40 years.
Recent Comments