Questions swirl around data in Hudson River PCB cleanup

HYDE PARK - Imagine an unseen contaminant, buried deep at the Hudson River's bottom, making its way into fish and then into humans over a period of decades.

Imagine a complex engineering project that has removed much of that mud, changing not only how much remains but also re-suspending some of the sediment and sending it downriver.

Think of the fish that accumulate more and more of the toxin in their fat over time, and imagine trying to understand how much was in the fish before the dredging began, how much remains now and how quickly those concentrations will change over time.

Think of trying to count how many people catch and eat the fish up and down 200 miles of riverfront, many of whom never understand or pay heed to signs and other advisories in several languages warning them not to.

These are some of the questions being asked of and considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as it weighs the effectiveness of General Electric Co.'s removal of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, from the upper reaches of the river.

The EPA is in the middle of a closely-watched, five-year review of what has been called the most complex Superfund cleanup in history. And all eyes are focusing on the data, much of which is still being collected and analyzed.

EPA: Hudson cleanup not affected by faulty fish tests

Concerns about those numbers — from how they are collected and what they mean, to the time the public will have to digest the complex science — were raised during a public meeting hosted by the EPA Thursday night at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum.

"We are going to look at all data, including data we are collecting this year, right up to the point where we could reasonably cut it off," said Gary Klawinski, the EPA's project director.

In the fall of 2015, GE finished dredging the river-bottom areas outlined in its agreement with the EPA.

The company has spent more than $1 billion removing 2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment containing 310,000 pounds of PCBs, more than twice what was originally estimated. EPA labeled the cleanup a success.

"GE completed the dredging project and by all accounts it was a success," GE spokeswoman Joan Gebhardt said. "The majority of PCBs in the upper Hudson were removed, as EPA intended. GE is confident the project will achieve the EPA's goals."

But in the 2002 agreement, the EPA established a number of measurements to determine whether the removal of that muck will effect a positive change quickly enough.

New York challenges effectiveness of cleanup in Hudson River

The most important of those data points are the PCB concentrations in the fish. The first batch of fish that could reflect the impact of the full dredging were collected recently and will be analyzed later this month.

The EPA will also begin long-term monitoring of sediment this fall.

But already, concerns are being raised.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation, the state Attorney General's Office, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have warned of long-term impacts caused by leftover sediment.

Federal agencies disagree over Hudson River PCB cleanup

Environmental nonprofits, elected officials and many communities have called for GE to be required to remove an additional 136 acres of contaminated muck or "hot spots."

Althea Mullarkey, a public policy analyst with Scenic Hudson, said she worried that data is being interpreted by the EPA, rather than provided to members of the review group with enough time for them to do their own, independent analysis.

"I am concerned," Mullarkey said, "that the protectiveness determination for the Hudson River has already been determined and everything we have seen to date supports that and doesn’t support looking at anything else."

John Parker, an attorney with Riverkeeper, called on the EPA, along with the state health department, to better understand how effective the warnings to anglers have been.

Kathryn Jahn of the Fish & Wildlife service, one of three trustees assessing the financial penalty GE will face, said "the trustees are concerned about the PCBs remaining in the river, but also concerned about the years and decades in the past when they impacted fish and wildlife resources adversely."

And one member of the five-year review group noted that even if the EPA called for more sediment to be dredged, there would need to be a scientific analysis of where that would come from.

"I wouldn’t know where to tell them to dredge for more," said Kevin Farrar of the DEC's environmental remediation division. "Some people like to point to certain parts of the river, but I don’t know that we really have the information to show that is the exact right place to do it."

For now, there is more science to be done.

The EPA said it plans to have its report ready for public review in February. The finalized review is due April 27.

John Ferro: 845-437-4816; jferro@poughkeepsiejournal.com; Twitter: @PoJoEnviro