From June 17 - 19 I was the guest blogger on The New York Times' "Taking Questions" feature of its City Room blog. The topic was "General Electric's project to remove PCBs from the Hudson River." The Times asked that I respond to 5 reader-submitted questions daily. Part 3 of the selected questions and my answers follows, just as it appeared on the The New York Times site:
Because so many inquiries about swimming have been posted, I feel obligated to clarify and expand on the quick summary I presented in a previous post:
— John Cronin
Kristen Skopeck, the Hudson River community involvement coordinator for the Environmental Protection Agency, tells me that swimming also tops the list of questions she receives at her Hudson River field office at 421 Lower Main Street in Hudson Falls, N.Y. This is a measure of the public attention accorded the dredging project, as well as the widespread eagerness to enjoy the river.
The New York State Department of Health, lead agency for swimming and health issues, expects that during the dredging, PCB levels in the Hudson River will remain below the E.P.A.’s drinking water standard of 500 parts per trillion. It has issued no dredging-related health warnings for the river.
The Health Department advises that swimmers avoid cloudy water in the designated six-mile area of the dredging activity, and not swim in the immediate vicinity of dredging because of the large amount of boat and equipment traffic. Otherwise, its standard warning for swimming in rivers and lakes applies. Those water bodies can contain microorganisms that are health hazards. Turbid or cloudy waters require the most caution. It is best to swim in regulated, tested waters. Don’t swallow. Wash and shower after swimming or wading.
For more detailed information, the agency has a Web site regarding swimming and dredging that also contains general advice on river swimming. The agency has created a map of the region around the dredging, extending to Troy (pdf). Here is the remainder of the river, from Troy to New York City (pdf). For reference: The tip of Manhattan is 190 miles south of the dredging operation. Poughkeepsie is 115 miles south. Albany is 40 miles south.
One should exercise caution when swimming anywhere in the Hudson. It is not a public pool. There is boat traffic throughout the river, most discharge pipes are submerged, and bacterial and other contamination can be present in large amounts after a rainfall. In addition, certain sections of the river have dangerous and surprising currents. Try to find a public or frequented beach, preferably one that is tested regularly. Do not swim alone. Avoid submerging your open eyes and mouth. And remember that you will be invisible to boaters.
This is straight from the Environmental Protection Agency Web site: “The animal studies were not able to identify a level of PCB exposure that did not cause effects on the immune system.” E.P.A. regulates that the level of PCBs in river and lake waters be no greater than 0.17 parts of PCBs per trillion parts of water. Parts per trillion? Ouch!!!!!!!!
— Posted by Worker @ GE Project
The Monsanto Company began production of polychlorinated biphenyls in the United States in 1929. PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical — an oil that would not burn, was impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications — from the manufacture of capacitors and transformers to carbonless carbon paper to fire-retardant fabrics.
Through air transport, PCBs became ubiquitous worldwide. When the chemical’s toxicity was discovered, the genie was already out of the bottle. The combination of its spread via the marketplace, air emissions and water discharges, such as those at the General Electric capacitor and transformer plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, made PCBs one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet.
PCB is a regulated toxic chemical that is now banned from production and use in the United States. It accumulates in fatty tissue and is passed from one organism to another in the food chain. The E.P.A. provides a thorough presentation of the uses, regulations, and health effects pertaining to PCBs. The agency says, “PCB has been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system and endocrine system.”
Some experts say there should be no acceptable level of PCBs allowed in the environment. Agencies have had to wrestle with that idea in a world in which PCBs are present in polar bears. Even at parts per trillion, the E.P.A.’s standards are a conservative but imperfect regulatory solution to a global environmental problem.
A number of questions have pointed toward “Superfund,” which is suddenly topical here in Brooklyn with the possible designation of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. In general, is Superfund designation helpful in getting the problem cleared, or does it, at times, just add a level of bureaucracy and additional time to an already elongated project? Why was the Hudson River not given “Superfund” status– is it because we knew who polluted? (G.E.?) Was it because it would sound bad? (Ha, ha, those New Yorkers have their whole river as a toxic site!!!!)
— Posted by Joel
In 1984, the E.P.A. declared the lower 200 miles of the Hudson River, from Fort Edward to Manhattan, a Superfund site, the largest in the nation. Though the PCB contamination is centered on the upper Hudson in the vicinity of Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, it has spread since 1947 to the whole fishery and is present in the mud of New York Harbor, though G.E. is not the only source (pdf).
E.P.A. provides a good overview of the Superfund law, better known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Superfund is unique. Its goal is to identify a contaminated site, evaluate its qualifications for E.P.A.’s national priorities list, design and oversee a cleanup, identify responsible parties, and identify financing — ideally from the responsible party; in lieu of that, from federal and state funds. Superfund has a history of problems with financing, however.
As with the Gowanus Canal, many communities are fearful of the stigma of a Superfund designation. In the final analysis, health concerns should come first. Interestingly, the Hudson River has become a more popular destination for visitors and tourists during the last decade.
Does dredging stop for archaeological discoveries, which must be a common feature at the bottom of the Hudson?
Are they planning a museum of dredged curios?
— Posted by Chris
This is an interesting issue that many people do not consider. For example, during the first week of dredging, an 1820s-era sailing vessel was found. It could not be saved, but it was documented. More on that below.
Minutes of one of the advisory committee meetings give some insight into the E.P.A.’s concerns about cultural and archaeological issues. (See page 4.) You should contact the E.P.A. Hudson River field office with further questions: (866) 615-6490, toll free.
I asked Mark Behan, G.E. spokesman for the dredging project, about the handling of archaeological finds. Here is his reply:
“As part of the planning for Phase 1, G.E. conducted a cultural and archaeological resources assessment, overseen by E.P.A.’s archaeological expert, Dr. John Vetter. G.E.’s contract archaeologists conducted a literature search to identify archaeological and historical resources in and near the areas to be dredged, a terrestrial search of public and private properties (the shorelines along the dredge area) and a river-bottom investigation with bathymetrical surveys, side-scan sonar and magnetometers.
“Based on the findings of the river-bottom surveys, potential artifacts were identified and divers were dispatched to search the river bottom by hand. Among the objects found were boat remnants, a coin, arrow heads, pottery, nails and old metal objects.
“In one area scheduled for dredging, the eastern channel of Rogers Island, G.E.’s archaeologists identified a sunken 1820s-era wooden sailboat buried in about two feet of sediment. Salvaging the vessel was considered, but E.P.A. determined that this resource could not be preserved because of its deteriorated condition. Instead, G.E.’s nautical archaeologists dove to the wreckage and photographed, videotaped and sketched it to create a historical record. After this, the wreckage was removed to make way for dredging.
“It is G.E.’s understanding that any objects that our archaeologists recovered from public property will become the property of the state of New York. E.P.A., the state and the local communities are addressing where these objects will be stored. Objects recovered from private property will be returned to the owners of the property. Should any new objects be discovered during dredging, G.E. is required to contact E.P.A. for instructions on how to proceed.”
I live in Jersey City, on the west side of the Hudson, just before it empties into the (embarrassed I can’t name this body of water). I’ve been dreaming of wading into the Hudson River for a swim, off the Piers in Hoboken, Jersey City or Liberty State Park — ideally with my dog and 2-year-old daughter.
Is this a good idea (maybe after a few days without rain), and does the G.E. cleanup change your answer? Am I crazy to believe that rivers are for swimming, along with other nondestructive uses?
— Posted by Don M.
Swimming in the New York City/New Jersey section of the Hudson and nearby waters requires special considerations — and I couldn’t resist another swimming question. The Hudson empties into Upper New York Bay, Don — unless you are talking about the Hackensack River, which empties into Newark Bay. I asked Bill Sheehan, the Hackensack Riverkeeper, about swimming in the New Jersey–New York City area. His response is a good summary of what swimmers in the very lower river should be considering.
“We still have some antiquated sewage systems in New Jersey, and when there is a hard rain the spike in bacteria goes way up and dissolved oxygen goes way down, so during that period it is not safe to swim. When there have been no rainfalls for a few weeks, our six-foot tides flush out the bay.
“More and more people are coming to the water. People who kayak and canoe are swimmers, after all. When they fall out of their boats, they are either swimming or drowning, and I haven’t pulled any bodies out of the water.
“People should remember there are strong tidal currents in some places, and they should not swim in waters they don’t know — and they shouldn’t swim around a rain event! Be very careful.”
I am surprised that you aren’t beating up on G.E. with the rest of us. Are you for or against the dredging? Do think dredging PCBs is good for the local community? Do you think G.E. is doing a good job? What about E.P.A.? I know you won’t answer all of these questions, but try.
— Posted by Gene
I have worked on the Hudson River for more than 35 years, and my involvement in the PCB case dates to 1975. I have had a good long while to think about G.E., the Hudson and PCBs. I support the dredging program. I spent years advocating for the cleanup. A comment called my description of the G.E. operation glib, presumably because I did not take the opportunity to rail against the company. But I don’t have to be angry to support dredging.
Support of PCB removal is simple math. Data show that upriver PCBs are still traveling downriver. G.E., which discharged large amounts of PCBs, can afford to remove them. The dredging should be done while the latter is still true, rather than be put off for another generation. By then, G.E. may have transitioned to another life or a different financial status.
That said, I am concerned about the dimensions of the project. I am concerned that the cleanup requires removal of Hudson River contamination to Texas, over the protests of a chapter of the Sierra Club there. I am concerned about the extensive construction and development, the train trips, and the potential impacts on the river. These are not small considerations.
On balance, E.P.A. made the proper decision, and G.E.’s present commitment to the project is impressive. I hope the dredging, transportation and disposal proceed flawlessly, that Phase 1 is a demonstrable success, and that Phase 2 offers the same promise. But success should not be assumed. It must be demonstrated. It would be tragic if, after huge investment — perhaps as much as $1 billion — and major upheaval, the dredging program proved a failure. But we cannot deny that fact if it turns out true.
A current tragedy of the PCB case is the large divide between river environmental groups and one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world, at a time when environmental innovation is a priority.
The G.E. of 2009 is not the G.E. of toaster ovens and PCBs. It innovates medical diagnostic technologies, long-term storage batteries and wind power. The E.P.A. of 2009 may prove to be the best iteration of the agency in decades. Contemporary environmental organizations are enjoying unprecedented public support. Were there no PCB issue, this combination would offer a natural collaboration for environmental solutions.
But there is much mistrust and it is unlikely to dissipate soon.
As for the local impact, I will leave it to local community members whether the dredging project is good for them. I hope it is. I hope it is good for the river. I hope it is good for everyone, including G.E.
Recent Comments