Environmental groups are condemning the EPA's latest review of a General Electric dredging project meant to remove PCBs from the Hudson River. For 30 years ending in 1977, GE dumped more than 1 million pounds of PCBs, which have been linked to cancer, into the Hudson. The company was ordered to dredge a section of the upper Hudson as a result, and ever since it finished in 2015, the EPA has been reviewing fish and sediment data every five years to determine whether the dredging was effective, or "protective" of the environment.
However, in its latest report, the EPA says it still doesn't have enough data to make that call. The hesitance has angered groups like Scenic Hudson, which says its own analysis finds PCB levels are not meeting the EPA's targets.
Peter Lopez is the executive director of policy, advocacy and science at Scenic Hudson, and a former Region 2 administrator for the EPA. He spoke with WAMC Hudson Valley Bureau Chief Jesse King.
———
The EPA says it needs eight years of fish data before it can really draw any scientific conclusions about the recovery rate. Does that check out with your understanding of the situation? Is that a thing?
"Yes, it's a thing — but it's being miscommunicated by the agency at present. So in the second five-year review, which I was a part of, there was a call for eight years of fish and sediment data to look for any variability, to make sure that there was a good basis for scientific judgement. In terms of eight years, they do have eight years' worth of data. From the dredge period to present, there is sufficient data at this point to make a determination. So to say that they need more time, based on what the data has shown and what the trajectory of the reduction of PCBs is showing — a very slow reduction or flat-out stall of reductions — it's really disingenous to say that another year or so of data collection is going to change the trajectory. It's not. Our belief, it's not.
I say this with all due respect, because the individuals who have released this report are my former colleagues, they're the people who used to report to me. But I am just baffled by the adherance to this 'eight years' when the data is there and when it's clear, in very demonstrable terms, that the reduction of PCBs is not occurring. In some cases, the recontamination...some of the levels have increased. It's very frustating, and it begs the question, 'What's next?' and that's something we're all taking under advisement right now."
Friends of a Clean Hudson put out its report finding PCB levels aren't dropping enough in 2023, but we're in 2025 now, and the EPA still says it doesn't have enough data. Where is it that you two are butting heads on this? Is it different sets of data that you're working with? Is it possible they have data you don't? How did the Friends of a Clean Hudson report come about?
"So the Friends of a Clean Hudson report came together through the work of consultants — we had Jay Field from NOAA and Kevin Farrar, the former DEC leader, I would say, for lack of a better term. I don't know if he was a bureau chief, but by role, the former lead researcher, lead program person on the Hudson River. The two of them came together and used the EPA's own data. So, when we talk about butting heads over data: the real issue is, we're of the belief that EPA doesn't take offense with the finding that we had, but they disagree on the interpretation of it. So our data points are accurate, our data points reflect what they're seeing, they just interpreting it differently.
By that, I mean they — the EPA — are of the belief that the PCBs will drop and will meet the goals that were intended as they were attached to the original decision that led to the cleanup, to the dredging in the upper Hudson. We believe that the data should be tied to interim goals that were identified in that decision — goals that either have not been met or will not likely be met. And the EPA has been backing away from those [interim] goals that were part of that record of decision. The data should have shown levels dropping — I don't have the exact number, but to a certain threshold by the early 2020s, and then another target for roughly 2030. The data is saying that they're not going to make the target, and that's where we're having the issue with the EPA. They believe that those targets not withstanding, the trajectory will materialize and will be on track. The data itself is their data. The findings that we have, they can't disagree with. It's just their interpretation of what the trajectory needs to look like to accomplish the mission of being 'protective' of public health and the environment."
The EPA says it got an eighth year of data in 2024, and that it will add an addendum to its third five-year review no later than 2027. So knowing that, what does the path forward look like from your perspective at Scenic Hudson?
"To the end that an addendum is called for, and the addendum at its core will seek additional data, my sense is that we need to make sure that that data collection is as robust as possible. And again, I'll be looking to our state partners, i.e. DEC and the governor's office, to see if they can help support that as well. We know that they, the governor's office and the DEC, are also closely monitoring the situation — they want the same thing we want, rapid reductions of PCBs. The question is, 'Do we have to wait until 2027? Or will the data, as it comes in, simply reinforce what we already have?' And that should be readily apparent as the data comes in."