NY Times off course on Hudson dredging

The New York Times gets a big point right and some big points wrong in its Sept. 2 editorial on the Hudson River dredging project (“On Course for a Cleaner Hudson”). The Times is correct that a panel of independent scientists have recommended major changes in the Hudson River dredging project. Here’s where The Times gets the facts wrong:

The photo above is from the dredging project’s first phase.

1. No court ever ordered GE to dredge the Hudson River. EPA issued a decision to pursue dredging in 2002. Though we had objected to dredging in favor of less risky cleanup strategies, GE made a public commitment to cooperate with EPA and continues to meet that commitment. Indeed, EPA commended GE’s work as “super human.”

2. It is not true that the problems with the first phase of dredging were unexpected. GE’s concern about dredging was based, in part, on potential impacts on the river. GE repeatedly warned that the process of dredging itself would resuspend and send downstream larger quantities of PCBs than EPA forecast. Indeed, the level of resuspension was 25 times greater than EPA’s estimate.

3. GE did not propose a limit on the quantity of PCBs to be removed. GE proposed a limit on the quantity of PCBs that dredging is permitted to send downstream. This is important because resuspending more PCBs undercuts the benefits EPA forecast for this project.

4. There is hope, but no evidence, that dredging will result in lower PCB levels in fish “long before the last load of toxic mud is pulled up from the bottom.” As a result of the resuspension caused by the first phase of dredging, PCB levels in fish rose. The greater the quantity of PCBs resuspended by dredging, the higher PCB levels in fish and the longer they are likely to persist.

The independent peer reviewers concluded unanimously that changes are necessary in the performance standards for the second phase of dredging and recommended additional information be collected to inform the new standards. GE has offered to do what the independent scientists have recommended — collect more data on PCBs in sediments, conduct more dredging in 2011 with process modifications that may reduce resuspension, and collaborate with EPA on a computer model to set limits on the quantity of PCBs that dredging is allowed to resuspend during Phase 2.

* Read our Letter to the Editor of The Times
* Learn more at www.hudsondredging.com
* Read “Major changes urged in Hudson River dredging project” on GE Reports