Posted on January 16, 2018
By Amy H Wu, Poughkeepsie Journal
The Hudson River cleanup appears to be stuck at a crossroads.
In a much-anticipated response to General Electric’s request for a certificate of completion for its cleanup of PCBs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a Jan. 2 letter it is delaying judgment until it finalizes the 5-year review of the river’s recovery.
The organization is hoping to complete its review “in early 2018,” according to Mary Mears, the EPA Region 2 director of public affairs, at which time it will make a decision. The EPA’s conclusion could spark legal action from the state and environmental groups.
The decision to delay was met with immediate support from Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, local officials and environmental groups.
“General Electric’s cleanup of the Hudson River fails to protect the environment and public health,” said Dutchess County Executive Marc Molinaro in a statement issued Jan. 3. “Additional dredging is needed to create jobs and to ensure the river is safe and healthy for all New Yorkers.”
The Hudson River PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) cleanup is one of the largest environmental cleanups in modern history. From 1947 to 1977, GE dumped an estimated 1.3 million pounds of the oily fire retardant and insulator into the river from its manufacturing plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward.
Under a 2006 consent decree with the EPA, the company was held responsible for the entire 197-mile Superfund site, but specifically required to clean up 40 miles of the upper river. The dredging started in 2009 and ended in 2015 with the company claiming it invested $1.7 billion on the cleanup. Since then, there has been no dredging or cleanup of PCBs, a probable carcinogen, in the river.
“The dredging project has been completed. GE completed all commitments to EPA, and EPA has said it was a success,” said Mark Behan, the GE spokesman for the Hudson River cleanup.
In a draft of the 5-year report released for public comment in June, the EPA concluded cleanup efforts were implemented successfully and touted “encouraging” data collected since dredging ended.”
However, environmental advocates and state officials argue more work needs to be done to restore the health of the Hudson River, a vital source of commerce through tourism, transportation and recreation, and say efforts are specifically needed to clean the lower Hudson, part of which flows between Dutchess and Ulster counties.
The cost of continuing that cleanup could be in the billions. Some state officials fear taxpayers may end up paying that price.
Hundreds of people held a rally in Mural Square Park ahead of the EPA’s informational session on its cleanup of the Hudson River. They voiced support of reducing the toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, from the river and asked the EPA to provide answers to their questions. Video by Jack Howland/Poughkeepsie Journal Wochit
The EPA’s decision whether to grant GE’s request for a certificate of completion was expected last month, as the organization was required to respond within 365 days of the Dec. 23, 2016 request. Anticipating this, environmental groups, state leaders, local officials in recent months increased pressure on the EPA through phone calls and letter writing. In December, Cuomo and Schneiderman announced the state is prepared to sue the EPA if the agency grants GE the certificate.
The campaigns appear to have played a role in the standstill.
Gary Klawinski, director of the EPA Region 2 Hudson River Field Office team, said the postponement was caused by the amount and “complexity” of public comments related to the impending 5-year review, which will reveal the EPA’s stance on the cleanup status. The EPA said it expects to finalize the review in the early part of this year.
Additional letters from state officials and the federal trustees also require more review, Klawinski said.
All parties agree the cleanup is a priority for the state, region and communities at large.
DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos stressed the Hudson River’s economic vitality to the region.
“This is a river that should be providing enormous economic and environmental benefits to New Yorkers,” said Seggos.
Other unknown factors could also impact the future of the river, including the shifting political climate. The EPA has lost hundreds of staff members since President Donald Trump entered office, according to USA Today Network reports, and the national budget is expected to include cuts to environmental cleanup programs.
Another factor could be the EPA Region 2’s newly named Regional Administrator Pete Lopez, who joined the agency in September. Lopez, who served in the New York State Assembly since 2007, was a member of the New York Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation.
Lower Hudson questioned
Environmental groups, elected officials and many community members argue the cleanup is far from complete, and that it should also include the lower part of the river.
“In terms of upper Hudson, we do think more can be done, and essentially nothing has been done in the lower Hudson,” said Manna Jo Greene, environmental action director of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater.
While GE is responsible for the entire Superfund Site based on the 2006 consent decree, the documents state dredging is only required in the 40-miles, the upper stretch north of Albany where the company’s manufacturing facilities were once based.
“GE has no obligations in the lower river and all of GEs obligation is in the upper river,” Behan said.
The cleanup of the upper part of the river and the lower part are interconnected, some environmental groups argue.
Althea Mullarkey, a public policy analyst at environmental group Scenic Hudson, points to the “spigot” theory, a reference to an idea from the EPA’s 2002 Record of Decision, that PCB cleanup in the upper Hudson affects the lower Hudson too.
Dredging of PCBs in the upper Hudson would reduce the amount of PCBs to the lower Hudson by as much as 20 percent, according to the 2002 Record of Decision.
Mullarkey said GE or the EPA needs to put together a feasibility report to determine the damage and needs in the lower Hudson.
Cleanup definition debated
There are differences among key stakeholders on what a complete cleanup would mean.
GE defines the cleanup within its agreement with the EPA, which it says it has met. Environmental groups say the cleanup is based on water quality, specifically, whether fish can be consumed and whether the water is swimmable.
The state Department of Health warns against anyone eating certain types of fish, such as walleye and white catfish, taken from the from the Hudson River between Dutchess and Ulster counties, and suggests other types, like striped bass, should only be eaten sparingly by people of certain age groups.
There are concerns over people from underserved communities who are eating the fish, and what could be the potential long-term impact on their health.
“People aren’t following those house advisories. The fact is, people are being exposed to the PCBs through fish consumption,” said Greene at Clearwater.
Greene said a 2010 study by Clearwater that focused on communities such as Peekskill found, despite health advisories against consuming Hudson River fish, “for various reasons people were unaware and eating Hudson River fish and people depending on fishing for subsistence.”
Clearwater and other environmental groups continue outreach campaigns in communities warning against consumption.
Natural habitat evaluated
As part of the upper Hudson cleanup, the company is responsible for the natural habitat, the cost of which is being evaluated separately by the Hudson River Natural Resources Trustees, an independent group with representatives from the DEC, NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service. The group has been reviewing the impact, and cost of cleanup and rebuilding habitat, since 1997.
“GE is responsible for the natural resources that were injured or continue to be injured,” said Kathryn Jahn, a trustees member representing the Fish and Wildlife Service. “We need to determine what needs to be done for compensation, and we will seek that from GE.”
Behan said GE remains “open to discussing these issues with them.”
Trustees have identified fish consumption as a factor in endangering populations of birds and mink. In addition, the trustees have examined damage to groundwater, surface water and underwater, as well as the damage caused to natural resources by the dredging and cleanup itself.
Jahn said she could not give details on the assessment or a timeline. She said natural resources claims are resolved by litigation or settlement, the majority being a settlement.
In the meantime, the trustees are pushing the EPA to deny GE the certificate of completion and have sent letters to the EPA’s Klawinski.
In a Dec. 13 letter, Jahn, on behalf of the trustees, wrote: “We believe additional PCB removal and robust habitat reconstruction under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act remedial program will accelerate the recovery of the river and its resources.”
Price tags unknown
Estimating the cleanup of the river’s entirety is challenging, since the lower Hudson has yet to be assessed.
GE has said it has invested an estimated $1.7 billion in the cleanup to date. The company doesn’t offer a breakdown of individual projects but said the majority was spent on dredging.
Dredging occurred 24 hours a day, six days a week, seven months a year for six years, according to Behan, who said as many as 500 employees worked on the project at one point.
The company removed 2.75 million cubic yards of mud containing 310,000 pounds of PCBs, more than twice what was originally estimated, which the EPA in the past labeled as a success.
GE is not required to submit a breakdown of project cost information to the EPA, the EPA confirmed.
“When a company signs on we do make sure they have the financial means to take on the work,” said David Kluesner, the chief of public outreach for EPA Region 2.
In a 2010 report prepared by GE to a panel of independent scientists who were put together by the EPA to evaluate the first year of dredging, the company reported it spent $560.9 million on the first phase of the dredging project, including over $227 million for dredging and more than $130 million in building dredging facilities including purchasing equipment.
In that report, GE said it spent $830 million on Hudson River-related cleanup projects and research since 1990.
Scenic Hudson estimates a comprehensive cleanup would cost another $500 million for the upper Hudson alone. The group also asserts the amount would be half if GE had not stopped dredging in 2015.
“We believe there is more work that needs to be done and estimate it would have only taken another two more seasons of dredging,” said Mullarkey. “They rushed to complete it, so we estimate it has doubled the cost.”
Environmental groups warn that if GE is issued a certificate of completion, taxpayers will be responsible for the cost of cleanup.
New York state has been preparing for that possibility.
The state has spent $50 million of studying the PCBs in the river.
Riverkeeper’s recent report “How’s the Water?”, which examined the water quality of the river estuary, estimated a $4.8 billion investment is needed for wastewater infrastructure in the Hudson River Watershed. It also found 21 percent of the river’s estuary samples failed to meet federal swimming guidelines.
The group estimates another $1.5 billion would be needed for a cleanup of the lower Hudson, given its size.
As for who should be responsible for future cleanup and costs, Seggos said “the polluter should always pay.
“GE outsources its pollution on the environment … now New York continues to bear some of that cost. Until the accounting of that is complete and the river itself is complete, New Yorkers are bearing that cost,” Seggos said.
He added the ultimate damage isn’t easily calculated as there has been value lost to the local economies including fisheries and natural resources.”
“And there is a stigma associated with the river itself,” Seggos said. “Those are enormous costs.”
Wait continues
Ned Sullivan, president of Scenic Hudson, said the cleanup of the Hudson River hinges on Lopez, the EPA’s regional administrator.
“I pray he will do the right thing,” said Sullivan, noting that if a certificate of completion is issued taxpayers would be responsible for the costs of future cleanups.
Riverkeeper is considering litigation if the certificate of completion is issued.
GE said it will engage in post-dredging monitoring by collecting environmental data of water, sediment and fish, and share the data with the EPA and state. GE continues to have roughly a dozen environmental engineers and scientists, some full time and others consultants, working on the project.
However, at a time when state and federal governments are often at odds with each other, there remains uncertainty over the possibility of a complete cleanup.
Seggos acknowledged the “unique and challenging political climate,” noting the federal government is not “strong on the environment.” Trump has said he will reduce funding for EPA cleanups and science programs.
“On the other hand, we’ve also heard the word that (EPA Chief Scott Pruitt) appreciates the importance of the Superfund program,” he said.
The Hudson River cleanup is a top priority for the DEC, he said.
“This is the biggest Superfund site in the country. It has a long and tortured history, and it’s part of the lifeblood of the state,” Seggos said.
Source: Poughkeepsie Journal
