Boyd: Scenic Hudson sifts through possibilities

Daily Gazette, The (Schenectady, NY)

November 19, 2000
Section: Opinion
Edition: Schenectady Albany; Final
Page: F-01

Scenic Hudson sifts through possibilities
GORDON BOYD For The Sunday Gazette
With the day approaching when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will issue its long-awaited report about what to do with the PCBs in the Hudson River, it may be hoped that the public will get the environmental issues in focus. That Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner John Cahill and Sen. Joseph Bruno can publicly disagree on what approach to take, as was revealed last week, suggests that reasonable people can disagree on what is in the river's and the community's best interests.

An environmental issue may be defined as one in which there is a knowable impact on the environment or public health from some aspect of this enormous and complex project. PCB levels in fish, for instance, is an environmental issue.
GE's obligation to its stockholders to maximize profits, on the other hand, is not an environmental issue. Some people may find it offensive that GE wants to make money, and they may resent GE for moving so many jobs away from this region. They may even find it emotionally satisfying to point out these obvious facts. But these have nothing to do with protecting the environment.
The best way to get environmental issues into focus is through an Environmental Impact Statement, a document prepared by a project sponsor that lists all the effects of a project, and is subject to challenge and question by experts on the other side.
It would be great if EPA's report and dredging order were subjected to a full EIS, but that won't happen, because the PCB cleanup question is governed by Superfund law. While the Superfund law will require EPA to consider technical, economic and other criteria (including community acceptance) in its orders to GE, the law does not provide for the same rigorous review and opportunities to challenge that would occur in most other environmental proceedings.
So, in the absence of an EIS to rigorously test the scientific basis of the anticipated dredging order, it falls to the skeptical and curious to ask the tough questions, and an excellent source of information has recently been published by Scenic Hudson, an environmental group that supports dredging ("Results of Contaminated Sediment Cleanups Relevant to the Hudson River," October 2000).
How much sediment would be dredged from the river?
It depends how much EPA orders GE to remove. The company has expressed concern it could be as large as 1.3 million cubic yards. Scenic Hudson calls GE's prediction of that magnitude of cleanup "unfounded," and states it is "unlikely that EPA will propose the extreme scenario GE so often describes." But an EPA official speaking in Latham recently projected that the cleanup could require as much as 4 million cubic yards of sediment removed. Who's right?
Where will the sediment go after it is removed from the river?
Sediment may be extracted from the river and the water removed and treated. The dewatered sludge would go to one or more existing landfills. Scenic Hudson states that "it is reasonable to expect the cleanup plan to include sediment disposal in existing landfills," and offers "regional solid waste landfills" as an example of disposal locations for sediment with lower concentrations of PCBs.
The group also offers that "new landfill construction near the Upper Hudson would be logical," though "EPA is unlikely to include it in a cleanup plan . . . because of local opposition." Whatever the risk of the PCBs remaining in the river, dredging them transfers and possibly augments that risk in any land-based treatment, transportation or disposal operations. If local landfill owners don't want the PCB sludge, trucks will have to take it farther away. I estimate that removal of 1.3 million cubic yards could require as many as 65,000 truck trips. What is the risk of those trips on the state's highways?
How will the sediment get from the river to the treatment/transfer or disposal site?
Scenic Hudson's report describes a flexible pipeline that would convey the river sediment to the land-based facility, which one imagines would probably include a wastewater treatment plant and sludge transfer operation. The group's research suggests pipelines as long as 9.3 miles have been used in navigational dredging projects. What additional pipeline protections (beyond what would be required for less contaminated "navigational" sediment) would be necessary for a PCB project?
What kind of dredging equipment will be used?
Scenic Hudson describes two types that have been widely employed in the U.S. GE's TV ads accurately depict one of them. The other is more like a tube with an interior screw mechanism that pulls the sediment up into a pipe.
The big question is how much sediment will be resuspended in the river by any dredging operation. Scenic Hudson's data, collected from a variety of sources, suggests a wide range of effectiveness. Some measure of contamination remains in sediment and fish even in the best situations. Scenic Hudson also wistfully discusses innovative dredges, lamenting that they are not available in the U.S. Should the upper Hudson be an experimental station for imported technology, unproven in the U.S.?
Does public opinion matter?
Public opinion in upper Hudson communities is firmly against dredging. We know this from, among other sources, this month's election results. Dredging advocate Ken McCallion, running on both Democratic and Green Party lines, received 27 percent of the vote in Washington County, and 29 percent in Warren County against incumbent Republican Congressman John Sweeney, who opposes dredging. Two years ago, Democrat Jean Bordewich, who did not make dredging an issue, received 50 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in Washington and Warren counties.
Dredging advocates evidently have yet to convince the residents of the upper Hudson that this project is in their interests.
Gordon Boyd lives in Saratoga Springs and is a regular contributor to the Sunday Opinion section.

Copyright 2000, 2006 The Daily Gazette Co. All Rights Reserved.