Natalie Pawelski: GE, EPA clash over Hudson PCBs

CNN Environmental Correspondent Natalie Pawelski

The Environmental Protection Agency is backing a Clinton administration proposal to require General Electric Co. to spend millions on dredging a 40-mile stretch of the upper Hudson River to clean out toxic PCBs -- or polychlorinated biphenyls -- deposited there by its capacitor plants over the course of years. GE contends it has worked to improve the river over the past 20 year and that the new $460 million project "will cause more harm than good." CNN's Natalie Pawelski provides an in-depth look at the matter.

Q. GE dumped PCBs in the river decades ago until they were banned in 1977. How dangerous are PCBs? What is the environmental threat here?

A. PCBs are considered a possible human carcinogen, and are linked to other health problems, too. People are supposed to limit how many Hudson River fish they eat in order to keep from being affected. And the commercial fishery has been shut down completely because of the health risk of eating PCB-laden fish from the Hudson River.

Q. Why is GE so vehemently opposed to the project?

VIDEO EPA Chief Christie Todd Whitman wants GE to dredge the overpolluted Hudson River. CNNfn's Allan Dodds Frank reports (August 1) Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)   MORE STORIES Time.com: Bush vs. Big Business? You never know

A. The dredging project would cost an estimated $500 million. And because of Superfund rules, General Electric would be on the hook for most of it. But GE says it's not the money it's worried about; it's the effectiveness of the cleanup. The company says dredging the river would just stir up PCBs buried in the riverbed. PCB levels have been dropping over the years, and the company argues the river is cleaning itself. On the other hand, PCBs stay toxic for about 250 years.

Q. There is opposition among citizens who live near the area of the dredging. How significant is it?

A. Some are worried dredging could disrupt life along the river and perhaps stir up PCBs -- suspend them in the water. Others say dredging is the only way to get rid of the PCBs once and for all. There were 10,000 public comments logged on various sides of the debate and people living along the Hudson are following it closely. So are their political leaders. Most of the congressional representatives of New York and New Jersey -- with a few notable exceptions -- support the dredging plan, as does New York Gov. George Pataki.

Q. Here is a situation where a Bush administration official gave the draft order to move ahead with a plan issued in the closing days of the Clinton administration. How politically significant is this?

A. Environmentalists say they're surprised and delighted and give EPA Administrator Christie Whitman a lot of credit on this one. It may have mattered that most of the congressional representatives and the governor of New York supported the dredging plan. Another possible factor: The Bush administration has been coming in for a lot of criticism on its environment record -- polls show the public is not happy with a lot of its decisions on that front, and there's some thought the administration has been trying to look greener when it can.

Q. Is the practice of dredging fail-safe? Could it cause more problems than solutions?

A. The EPA believes it has science on its side. There have been a lot of studies on this, and officials say dredging looks like the best bet for cleaning up the Hudson. They say there may well be an increase in PCB levels in the short term because of the dredging, but they argue that the long term gains will be worth it. But this project would be unprecedented -- it would be the biggest remedial dredging effort in U.S. history -- so there could be surprises along the way.

Q. The cleanup process apparently will be done in stages and the performance will be reviewed at each stage. Is this the best way to undertake such a large project?

A. The advantage to doing it in stages is that if the cleanup just isn't working, you have a chance to change your strategy. A potential drawback: Each review could open the whole issue up to debate again and again -- frequent reviews could make the whole cleanup process longer and more tortuous than it would otherwise be.