4/11/97 New EPA PCB Report Puts General Electric On The Defensive Starting in 1947 and ending in 1977, General Electric allowed over 1,000,000 pounds of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) to enter the environment at an area just south of Glens Falls, NY. The concentrations of this chemical among the river's sediments are sufficient to place the Hudson on the Superfund National Priorities List. From GE's plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward south to New York City, PCBs have tainted 200 miles of biota and sediment - virtually the entire Hudson Valley - placing over 10,000,000 people at potential risk. A once-vibrant commercial and recreational fishery valued in 1976 at $40,000,000 per year, remains closed to this day with a few exceptions. Health advisories warn against consumption of any Hudson River fish, especially by women and children. There are known deposits exceeding an additional 600,000 pounds in the bedrock and strata beneath the two plant sites where PCBs were used (Source: NYS DEC). PCBs are carcinogens, endocrine disrupters, and neurotoxins (see "Our Stolen Future," Colborn et al, 1996). They are reaching humans through drinking water, milk and other foods, and through direct contact such as swimming, eating Hudson River fish, atmospheric deposition, and breathing Hudson Valley air. Since 1989, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been conducting a multimillion-dollar Reassessment of the upper Hudson's PCB hot spots. Using its own data augmented by GE's data, EPA expects to issue a Record of Decision (ROD) by the end of 1998. The ROD will describe EPA's solution to the ongoing contamination of Hudson River biota by General Electric PCBs. The Reassessment has been taking place in a number increments. The most recent report, entitled "Data Evaluation and Interpretation," is the first to contain substantive findings. According to William Greider, author of the New York Times bestselling book Who Will Tell the People (Simon & Schuster, 1992), GE is adept at using the Superfund process to create enough make-work to bog-down EPA's scarce resources and "...spelled out step-by-step tactics for hanging up the liability process in the tangle of court challenges." GE has been doing this very effectively for some time. For years, GE has been telling the people of the Hudson Valley an assortment of "facts". The latest EPA Reassessment report, however, entitled Data Evaluation and Interpretation, shows that many of GE's "facts" were wrong, and removes most of GE's mantle of credibility. GE's most cherished myths about PCBs in the Hudson River were exploded by this report. We list them below: 1. GE: PCBs will biodegrade, and this biodegradation constitutes a suitable remedy. "The truth is, the river is cleaning itself up." (GE rep. Mel Schweiger, Schenectady Gazette, 9/17/95). EPA: Biodegradation has reduced PCB mass less than 10%, and will go no farther. Dechlorination does not progress to the point of eliminating all chlorine atoms at any time. "Sediment inventories will not be naturally remediated' via dechlorination." (EPA report 2/97). 2. GE: Dechlorination occurs in an aerobic environment, and can effectively destroy PCB molecules. "It is now recognized that PCBs are biodegradable by aerobic oxidative processes..." (GE scientists Abramowicz and Olson, Chemtech 7/95). EPA: "Dechlorination cannot occur under aerobic conditions." (Dr. Ed Garvey, EPA consultant, at 2/19/97 briefing). Anaerobic dechlorination does occur in areas of heavier concentrations (above 30 ppm), but always leaves at least one chlorine atom, and often two or three. In many areas with concentrations below 30 ppm, there is no evidence of dechlorination (EPA report 2/97). 3. GE: PCB levels have been declining. (GE River Watch, winter 1997). EPA: PCB levels have been constant over the last 3 years. (EPA report 2/97). 4. GE: The seeps from Hudson Falls are the principal source of PCBs to the river. Once we stop the seeps, PCB levels in the river will virtually disappear. (GE reps at Hudson Falls briefing, 4/1/96). EPA: The seeps from Hudson Falls only constitute a small percentage of the total loading going over the Thompson Island Dam, and from there into the lower Hudson (EPA report 2/97). 5. GE: PCBs in sediment do not contribute to water column PCB burdens. (GE reps at Hudson Falls briefing, 4/1/96). EPA: PCBs in sediment may be reentering the water column in two ways -- resuspension, and pore water outmigration. PCBs from sediment are increasing the PCB burden of water traveling through the Thompson Island Pool three-fold. "Sediment is the driving force." (EPA report 2/97). 6. GE: We are not the only source of PCBs into the Hudson (GE reps at Hudson Falls briefing 4/1/96). EPA: "The area of the site upstream of the Thompson Island Dam represents the primary source of PCBs to the freshwater Hudson." (EPA report 2/97). 7. GE: PCBs are coming into the Hudson from the tributaries (GE reps at Hudson Falls briefing, 4/1/96). EPA: "The PCB load from the Thompson Island Pool has a readily identifiable homologue pattern which dominates the water column load from the Thompson Island Pool to Kingston..." (EPA report 2/97). 8. GE: PCBs are not harmful. "...most evidence...suggests that there are no adverse health effects attributable to high occupational exposures to PCBs." (GE scientists Abramowicz & Olson, Chemtech, 7/95). EPA: GE's own data recently established the carcinogenicity of all congeners of PCBs, whether heavily or lightly chlorinated. (Dr. Brian Bush, NYS DOH). "We do not agree that reduction in chlorination levels equals reduction in risk."(EPA, 2/19/97, at briefing). 9. GE: The Thompson Island Pool is anomalous, and needs further study (GE rep. John Haggard, 2/19/97, at EPA briefing). EPA: We have enough data to make a determination (EPA, 2/19/97, at briefing). 10. GE: Dredging constitutes "A catastrophic assault on river life." "Activists like dredging, but science does not." (GE River Watch, winter 1997). EPA: "We've selected dredging for remedial action at six other PCB contaminated sites. EPA does believe that dredging is possible and can be implemented. There are remedial technologies that are available at this time." (EPA rep. Douglas Tomchuk, 10/96). General Electric claims that "...at the end of the day, [it] will be there with money," and that its only concern has been that we collectively "find the best solution" (GE rep. David Warshaw, RNN-TV, 2/19/97). For a couple of weeks GE representatives were stumbling over their words, but now seem to have found their rhetoric again. What will GE say to regain command of the dialogue? They are falling back on the same old song, with a new refrain: EPA's findings (which included GE's own data) are all wrong. Clearly, according to GE, the emperor is wearing clothes.

Send comments and questions to envaction@mail.clearwater.org