Harper's Missed The Boat on the Hudson River

Home

Latest Info

UPDATED! Read the Phase 1
Evaluation Report The First Phase of Dredging Where Dredging Was Performed Monitoring Data For News Media

Resources

Contact GE Contact EPA Report A Concern

arper's Magazine for December features a long article on PCBs and the Hudson River that is rife with serious inaccuracies and baseless speculation. GE alerted Harper's to problems in the story well before publication; Harper's published the claims anyway.

The magazine relies for technical expertise on an Ithaca, N.Y., "consultant," who says of the most studied river in America, the subject of a 12-year-long EPA reassessment: "No one really knows how the Hudson got polluted and I do."

What follows is a point-by-point rebuttal to some of the most outrageous claims in the article.

Harper's Claim: The magazine's consultant is quoted as saying, "There's a half-mile underground lake of raw PCBs leaking into the bottom of the goddamn river." Harper's buys his theory and concludes that areas around the river are "saturated with untold tons of migrating toxins that threaten to nullify" the results of the Hudson River dredging project. (Harper's, Page 46)

The Facts:

There is no credible scientific evidence of an "underground lake of raw PCBs leaking" into the river.
A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation official confirms there is no evidence of major PCB leakage to the river and says "that's simply not what's going on there."
Dr. David Carpenter of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York at Albany calls the theory that PCB leaks to the river would nullify the dredging remedy "nonsense."
Dave King, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's manager of the Hudson River dredging project, interviewed by The Daily Gazette of Schenectady, said this of Harper's story: "I disagree with the premise and the conclusion." He confirmed PCBs entering the river near the plant sites have been "essentially stopped."
The Upper Hudson River is the most studied remedial site in the United States. State and federal regulators have been evaluating the river and shoreline areas for decades.
Massive cleanups have been completed or are underway at all sites where PCBs have been identified, including in the bedrock beneath GE's plant sites.
The cleanups are working: PCB levels in water downstream of the plant sites have decreased from five pounds a day in the 1990s to less than an ounce per day today. In addition, the average PCB level in the water has dropped to less than 3 parts per trillion -- more than one hundred times below the level at which New York State considers the water safe for the public to drink (500 parts per trillion).
Harper's presents not a single fact to support its "consultant's" assertion. What's worse, Harper's published the assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Harper's Claim: PCBs in fish far exceed the federal Food and Drug Administration standard for human consumption. The article claims that "in 2008 the average PCB level in smallmouth bass was 188 parts per million; the average in striped bass was 22 ppm." (Harper's, Page 43)

The Facts:

Harper's used the wrong methodology for measurement.
PCB concentrations in Upper Hudson fish have declined 90 percent since 1977. While some species in some places remain above the FDA standard of 2 ppm, average PCB levels in most species in both the Upper and Lower Hudson are below the standard.
For example, Upper Hudson largemouth bass, an important game fish, had an average of 0.87 ppm -- one half of the FDA limit -- in 2008. That same year, PCB levels in smallmouth bass in the Upper and Lower Hudson averaged 1.35 ppm and 0.83 ppm, respectively -- both below the FDA threshold.
Average PCB levels in striped bass in the Lower Hudson have been below the 2 ppm standard since 1995. In fact, in 2008, their PCB levels averaged 1.1 ppm.
The FDA bases its safety threshold of 2 ppm on a "wet-weight concentration," meaning it evaluates PCB concentrations in the edible portion of the fish. This is the same measurement the New York State Department of Health uses to guide fish advisories. Harper's measured PCBs only in the fatty tissue of fish.

Harper's Claim: PCB clean-up programs on land around the Upper Hudson River have been "superficial fixes." (Harper's, Page 46)

The Facts:

Under New York State's supervision, GE has been conducting comprehensive, multi-phased remedial programs at its Fort Edward and Hudson Falls plant sites for 30 years. Since 1990, GE has invested $629 million in these clean-up projects and has met all of its regulatory requirements.

The New York Environmental Conservation Department official who oversees the plant-site cleanups told The Daily Gazette of Schenectady: "We are not done at these plants. It's a complex environmental problem. But we are more than 90 percent there."

At Fort Edward:

More than 7,000 tons of soils containing 16 tons of PCBs have been removed.
More than 27,000 gallons of PCBs have been pumped out of the ground under the plant site parking lot.
A network of underground wells on and near the property has collected more than 437 million gallons of water and shrunk a plume of groundwater containing volatile organic compounds by 50 percent.
To address potential contamination of nearby residential drinking water wells, GE routinely tests the wells and has provided free connections to the public water supply to more than 70 homeowners.

At Hudson Falls:

GE has removed nearly 308,000 pounds of PCBs from the site, including more than 80,000 pounds of PCBs in the bedrock beneath the site.
A network of 262 underground wells has collected 7,640 gallons, or 38.2 tons, of PCBs. A state-of-the-science water treatment plant has treated more than 469 million gallons of water.
The clean-up work has reduced the volume of PCBs reaching the river to less than one ounce a day. Earlier this year, a first-of-its-kind, under-the-river collection system was drilled into the bedrock 80 feet below the river to capture the less than one ounce a day of PCBs reaching the river. The system is fully operational and operating effectively.

Shoreline Work:

Under EPA's supervision, GE installed and has maintained an engineered cap on more than 60 acres of shoreline to prevent PCBs in soils from reaching the river. GE has also placed caps in publicly and privately owned shoreline and floodplain areas that contain PCBs.

For the record, there is no evidence that the "consultant" upon whom Harper's relied has ever visited the GE Hudson Falls or Fort Edward plant sites to see the clean-up programs at work, conducted any sampling or analytical work, or even issued a technical report. Harper's declined GE's request to review the consultant's findings.

Harper's Claim: The magazine asserts that GE's discharges were not legal. (Harper's, Page 45)

The Facts:

GE's use of PCBs was entirely legal.
As soon as a permit program was established by the Army Corps of Engineers, the company applied for, and received, appropriate government permits to discharge PCBs and other materials to the river. The federal government established the first permit program for industrial water discharges in 1971. GE applied for a permit in July 1971 to discharge PCBs to the Hudson River. Before that, there was no government program for permitting industrial discharges.
In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and determined that companies like GE that had applied for permits could continue discharging and would not be in violation of the Act while their permit applications were being reviewed. The federal government issued GE's permit in 1974.
A year later, the Department of Environmental Conservation brought an administrative proceeding against GE, claiming that its discharges violated state law. The matter resulted in the 1976 landmark agreement in which GE and New York State each agreed to contribute $3 million to a fund for research and clean-up of PCBs in the Hudson River. GE agreed to perform an additional $1 million in environmental research, and New York State accepted full responsibility for cleaning up the river. There was no finding or determination by the DEC Commissioner that GE violated the law.
The hearing officer said in part: " ... GE's conduct in this case was not in willful disregard of the rules and does not fit the stereotype of the corporation that spurns the law in exploiting public resources ... "
Harper's provides no factual or legal basis for its assertion that the Rivers and Harbors Act and/or the Refuse Act of 1899 outlawed discharges. GE relied on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of the law at the time.

Harper's Claim: The magazine claims "Fuller's earth, a kitty-litter-like substance, was used to refine the PCBs, then given away to local residents as 'clean, non-combustible' fill." (Harper's, Page 45)

The Facts:

There is absolutely no evidence that GE's Hudson Falls or Fort Edward businesses "gave away" or otherwise distributed Fuller's earth or any similar substance in the community.
New York State investigated this issue in the late 1980s and early 1990s and found no evidence to support this claim.
Harper's offered no evidence to substantiate the allegation, nor did it identify its source.

Harper's Claim: The magazine quotes a former asphalt company employee as saying PCBs were sprayed on unpaved roads in Warren, Washington and Saratoga counties to suppress dust. (Harper's, Page 46)

The Facts:

GE did not spray roads or parking lots with PCBs as a dust suppressant.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has investigated and documented this historic practice in the Upper Hudson area, and took remedial action when appropriate.

Harper's Claim: The magazine claims GE's monitoring of Hudson River water is missing PCB droplets that bounce along the top of the sediment. (Harper's, Page 47)

The Facts:

The method for sampling PCBs in water is well established and performed pursuant to EPA- and New York State-approved protocols.
The same method is used to analyze PCB levels in water at remedial sites across the country.
All the data GE collects from the Hudson River and its plant sites is provided to New York State and/or EPA for review.
The first phase of the dredging project brought more sampling frequency and more sophisticated collection techniques. Under an agreement between GE and EPA, GE increased the numbers of samples collected and GE and EPA agreed on new protocols for collecting two types of samples: "Grab" samples of water would be taken in shallow areas and larger quantities of water with depth-integrated samples in deeper areas. Though the collection techniques vary, the samples produce very similar results. PCBs remain at extremely low levels in the water of the Upper Hudson.

Harper's Claim: The magazine quotes a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation official as saying that GE did not cooperate with New York State's plan for the cleanup of a Hudson River discharge pipe (known as 004) associated with the Fort Edward plant. (Harper's, Page 49)

The Facts:

GE and DEC have worked together to remove PCBs on the Fort Edward plant site and in and around the 004 discharge pipe area since the mid-1990s and have agreed on the vast majority of clean-up steps. The clean-up projects have been effective.
GE proposed and DEC agreed to the removal of the old discharge pipe and of the soil and rock around the pipe. GE completed the work years ago.
Under DEC's oversight, GE is now completing a remedial study of the bedrock beneath the location of the former pipe to see what, if any, additional clean-up work may be warranted.
Where GE and DEC disagreed was on a DEC proposal to remove additional soil and debris near the former outfall. GE was concerned that the excavation could imperil the stability of the riverbank and performance of the work could raise safety concerns. DEC proceeded with the project and has completed it.