GE dubious of DEC study
Company says there's no proof PCBs on shore, in animals are connected to its plants

By DINA CAPPIELLO
Wednesday, April 4, 2001

Responding to a state study that showed hazardous levels of PCBs on the banks of the Hudson River, the General Electric Co. said Tuesday it is impossible to determine how the PCBs got there and the new information does not support the need to dredge the Hudson.

"The data indicate that some soils located near the river contain PCBs. No one can say with certainty where the PCBs came from. The source of PCBs is in question,'' said Joan Gerhardt, a GE spokeswoman. Company officials stressed they are still reviewing the scientific data released by the state Monday.

But GE also referred to those interpreting high levels of PCBs detected in mink, otter, shrews and floodplains as a reason for dredging about 35 miles of river as "irresponsible.'' The project, which was proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in mid-December, could cost the company $460 million.

GE, which discharged an estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the river from its two Washington County capacitor plants, was reacting to a report from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which had 12 locations along the river from Hudson Falls to Stillwater tested in preparation for a federal lawsuit against the company. For the DEC, there is only one source of PCBs -- the river.

It's when the river floods that PCBs from the bottom are burped up on its banks, the DEC said. "The studies indicating high levels of PCB concentrations in soils and animals near the Hudson River ... in these areas (are) resulting from the river's contamination,'' said Environmental Conservation Commissioner Erin M. Crotty.

The DEC has backed the EPA's plan to remove the most highly contaminated sediments from the river.

"This further marginalizes GE, which is a company making a preposterous argument that removing poisons is a bad idea,'' said U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty, D-Green Island. "Sound science is mounting that PCBs should be removed from the river.''

The company, which has long contended that PCBs are trapped under layers upon layers of sediment, claimed Tuesday that the toxic chemical could have been placed on the banks by historical events, such as when the Fort Edward Dam came down in 1973, sending a slurry of mud, paper chips and PCBs down the river. The company, however, did not dispute that the PCBs found in mink and otter are from eating fish, something it thinks can be controlled by corking the three ounces a day that still seeps out beneath its Hudson Falls plant.

"They could have come from other sources, other incidents along the river,'' Gerhardt said. "It is irresponsible for anyone to make any conclusions about this data.''

But while standing on the shores of Fort Hardy Park in Schuylerville on Tuesday -- the midpoint of the stretch of river tested by the state and federal government in 1999 and last year -- David Carpenter, a neurotoxicologist and former dean of the UAlbany's School of Public Health, grasped a bundle of bar charts and said he had proof that the PCBs were from GE's contamination of the river.

The 209 different varieties of PCBs are like fingerprints, and the type used by GE as an insulator in electrical capacitors and the kind found on the shorelines matched.

"This proves without a shadow of a doubt that PCBs have migrated from the river,'' Carpenter said. "We need to determine the magnitude of the risk to people whether they eat fish or not.''

Looking on, Phil Dean, owner of the Schuyler Yacht Basin across the street, said he wasn't worried about the new information showing PCBs are on his property. He even questioned whether the chemical was an environmental and public health threat.

"I haven't seen any changes in the birds and the bees,'' he said. "It doesn't bother me at all.''

Yet a half-mile upriver, just outside of Schuylerville village, David Mathis looked out at the river from his deck and wondered what PCBs existed in his front yard.

"When the data came out on the shoreline, it really convinced me about dredging,'' Mathis said. "I was very concerned about the health of my family.''

Previously Mathis thought the PCB problem was limited exclusively to the river system -- working their way up the food chain to fish.

Others, however, weren't as surprised by the new studies.

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Halfmoon, a dredging opponent, said Tuesday that shoreline PCB removals have already taken place, and some of the PCBs could have wound their way to the river from municipalities.

"It's rather presumptuous to suggest that PCBs are walking out of the river onto Main Street,'' Sweeney said. "This doesn't further the argument that dredging should happen or not. It doesn't change the fact that EPA hasn't outlined the risks of dredging.''

One of those risks -- that highly contaminated soil entombed now could be turned up -- could even boost PCB levels on the riverbanks, according to Charles Putman, a professor at the University at Albany who was once a member of the EPA's Science and Technical Committee on the Hudson River.

"PCBs will settle out in some places along the river,'' Putman said. "It's fruitless to control PCB pollution at the water-sediment interface by dredging the hot spots. That will only increase the concentration in sediment at that boundary.''