Back in 1976, Jack Welch negotiated a settlement with the state of New
York, which limited the General Electric (GE) corporations responsibility
for polluting the Hudson River to $3 million. Welchs hard-nosed
negotiating style gained the attention of top executives, launching his
meteoric rise to the top of the company.
GE executives probably hoped the deal would bury the issue forever, and
that everyone concerned about the PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) lying
on the bottom of the river would let nature take its course.
But persistent concerns about the PCB contamination have caused the Environmental
Protection Agency to study the issue on a continuous basis since the site
was listed on the nations Superfund priority site list in the early
1980s.
Finally, on December 6, 2000, after 16 years of studies, proposals and
more studies, EPA announced a 5-year plan to dredge 2.65 million cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated sediment along a 40-mile stretch of the river
below two old GE factories in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward. The proposed
dredging project would remove 100,000 pounds of PCBs from various high-concentration
hot spots.
This river needs to be cleaned up. It will not clean itself,
then-EPA administrator Carol Browner said at the press conference where
the proposal was announced. My strong desire would be that we not
simply study this river to death, but we get on with actually cleaning
this river.
The cost of EPAs proposal to GE: $460 million.
The high cost of the cleanup has led company officials to mount one of
the biggest public relations campaigns ever waged around a toxic waste
site.
Theres nothing tentative about GEs attack, says
Andrew Hoffman, an assistant professor of management at the Boston University
School of Management. Theres nothing theyve left untouched
in their full-bore attack that could help them avoid paying the half billion
dollars to clean up the river.
But whats at stake is much more than whether or not GE will be
forced to foot the bill to dredge the Hudson: the case is likely to be
a litmus test of how aggressively the Bush administration manages EPAs
Superfund program which includes 77 other sites where GE
is responsible for the cleanup.
Attention to GEs Hudson PCB mess could also bring out some additional
skeletons in GEs closet. An investigation of factory locations around
the United States where GE once used PCBs to make electrical equipment
turns up a pattern of waste sites which continue to need remediation.
Plus, one-time company policies to give away or sell PCB-contaminated
oil and dirt for fill and other purposes spread the contamination directly
into surrounding communities, creating a number of orphan waste sites,
some of which have only recently been discovered. The full extent of GEs
PCB contamination is most likely still unknown.
THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM
According to GE, cost is not what is at issue in the Hudson, but rather
whether the EPAs cleanup plan will work at all.
The issue here is should the river be cleaned up, and the answer
is yes. We support that, says John Haggard, GEs Hudson River
project manager. In fact, weve been working over the last
two decades actively to do just that. And weve been very successful.
The question is not about doing nothing, its about doing the right
thing. And dredging is not it.
Instead of dredging, GE officials say they have focused their efforts
on measures they claim address the source of the problem: the company
has spent $200 million on a groundwater pump-and-treat system to reduce
the flow of PCBs from the bedrock below its Hudson Falls facility from
5 pounds to 3 ounces a day. As a result of these efforts and the rivers
natural recovery processes, GE officials say PCB levels in fish
have dropped 90 percent since 1977.
GE used to claim that microorganisms were breaking down the PCBs released
into the river, but the company now says they are buried and made inaccessible
by newer sediments.
Burial of the historic PCBs (by upstream sediments) puts them further
and further from reach from the biota, says Edward LaPoint, another
GE project manager. They dont get into the food chain and
up into the fish because theyre buried beneath cleaner, fresher,
uncontaminated sediments.
But wildlife scientists say the fish are still too contaminated, that
the levels have not declined significantly in recent years, and that it
will probably be decades before they are safe enough to eat, because PCBs
left on the bottom of the river continue to enter the food chain.
The data dont lie, says Marion Trieste, a consultant
for environmental groups monitoring the Hudson. She points out that state
environmental officials have also found high levels of PCBs in floodplain
shoreline soils up to 50 feet outside the normal width of the river. The
PCBs are entering the land-based food chain as a result. Theyve
found incredibly high levels of PCBs in the river otters and mink, which
have not declined in 10 years, says Trieste. Thats an
indication that the problem is spreading beyond the river
it means we have to clean the river to deal with the impacts on shore.
Last year, scientists working for the state Department of Environmental
Conservation also found high levels in turtles taken from the river
as high as 3,091 parts per million (although no federal action level exists
for turtles, the standard for fish is 2 ppm). If we dont do
anything, were looking at another 25 years where they will still
be high, says department wildlife pathologist Ward Stone.
EPA officials say each day the company delays the sediment cleanup only
allows the contamination to spread further downstream. Monitors indicate
that 500 pounds of PCBs fall over the dam at Troy (40 miles downstream
from the two GE factories) each year. With the seepage from the bedrock
below GEs old factories significantly reduced, cleanup advocates
say the PCBs on the river bottom are now the source of the spreading contamination.
One of the things that you hear [from GE] is that the river is
cleaning itself, says Ann Rychlenski, a public affairs specialist
with EPA.
From those mouths to Gods ears, I wish it was true, but its
not. PCBs dont break down. They change from one kind of PCB to another,
and theyre all a problem. The river is not cleansing itself
of them.
DREDGING UP A SORDID HISTORY
Monsanto began making PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in 1929. The oily
compounds were considered useful because they are stable, fire resistant
and do not conduct electricity. For more than 40 years, PCBs were widely
used as an insulating agent in electrical equipment, including capacitors
(devices to store electricity) manufactured by GE at its plants in upstate
New York.
But the same qualities that made PCBs so useful especially
their stability make them a persistent problem in the environment.
A good number of the 78 U.S. Superfund sites where GE is listed as a responsible
party are contaminated with PCBs.
And PCBs are more than just a problem for communities living near toxic
dumpsites. Because they are long-lived, semi-volatile and dont dissolve
in water, PCBs can travel long distances (the 200-mile stretch of the
Hudson River below GEs factories is considered the biggest Superfund
site in the United States).
The potential impact doesnt stop at the tip of Manhattan. Because
of their stability and ability to travel long distances, PCBs can migrate
around the planet. PCBs are part of a global class of chemicals known
to migrate from warmer regions to colder regions. Inuit people living
in the Arctic thousands of miles from any industrial source carry some
of the highest body burdens of PCBs on the planet. Because they are global
pollutants, PCBs are included in a list of POPs (persistent organic pollutants)
targeted for elimination by the United States and over 120 other countries
in a recent treaty. [See Taking on Toxics I: Stopping POPs,
Multinational Monitor, January/February 2001] Thus PCBs from the Hudson
can potentially have a global impact.
PCBs are also fat-soluble, which means that they concentrate as they
move up the food chain. Animals at the top of the food chain
especially mammals like polar bears and dolphins have dangerously
high levels of the chemicals, which they lack the ability to detoxify.
Humans, too, are contaminated. PCBs regularly make the list of chemicals
found in human tissue surveys.
As early as the 1930s, GE executives knew about problems in workers exposed
to PCBs. GE executives met with colleagues from Monsanto and other companies
to share information on the systemic effects of PCBs and other
chlorinated hydrocarbons, including chloracne, a disfiguring skin condition.
In 1937, GEs F.R. Kaimer published an article in the Journal of
Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology about 50 workers who were in very
bad condition as far as the acne was concerned.
While scientists have warned about PCBs carcinogenicity since at
least the 1970s, recent attention to PCBs interference with endocrine
systems during fetal development and other critical stages of growth have
increased concern and caused many to criticize federal cleanup standards
as too weak. Studies conducted in both the United States and the Netherlands
have concluded that children exposed in the womb to high-end background
levels of PCBs experience signs of diminished intelligence and greater
susceptibility to infectious diseases than children with lower levels
of exposure.
Between the 1940s and 1976, when the U.S. Congress outlawed PCB manufacture,
sale and distribution (except in totally enclosed systems),
GE discharged about 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River.
The contamination ruined a once-thriving commercial fishing industry and
devastated recreational fishing, which was only opened on a catch
and release basis in the 40-mile long upper Hudson in 1996, after
being closed for two decades.
This isnt the first time EPA has proposed to dredge the river.
In the early 1980s, EPA was ready to proceed when a highly politicized
Reagan Administration stalled the process. Ultimately, EPA selected a
no action alternative.
As required by law, EPA and other agencies started to re-examine the
issue during the first Bush Administration. After many years of study
looking at the movement of PCB hotspots, levels in fish,
human health risks and (through the National Academy of Sciences) various
dredging technologies the EPA finally issued its proposal
in 2000.
GE SUPER FUNDS THE FIGHT
Federal law requires the EPA to consider local opinion before it issues
a final Record of Decision (ROD) in Superfund cases, which it expects
to do in the Hudson River case in August. While downriver residents from
New York City and the Hudson River valley strongly support EPAs
proposal, opposition has increased with time in upriver communities. Much
credit for that can go to GE, which has applied Jack Welchs hard-charging
management style to the issue, ramping up a sophisticated, proactive,
multi-layered legal, political and public relations campaign to stop the
dredging plan.
The most visible part of the campaign have been the millions of dollars
GE has spent on television commercials (at least 16 separate ads have
been produced for the company), a half-hour infomercial (for upstate networks),
radio ads, full-page newspaper ads, billboards, bus signs, newsletters
and web sites. The heaviest advertising blitz came just before the April
17 deadline for public comments expired.
GE has refused to disclose exactly how much it has paid to wage its anti-dredging
campaign, but observers estimate that the company has spent as much as
$60 million to defeat EPAs $460 million proposal. After a shareholder
resolution calling on the company to disclose how much it had spent came
up for a vote at the companys annual meeting in April, Jack Welch
claimed that the company has spent between $10 million and $15 million.
Dredge supporters like the Poughkeepsie-based environmental group Scenic
Hudson have nowhere near the financial clout to counter GEs assault
over the airwaves. Nor can EPA spend taxpayers money on infomercials.
The reason GE is buying television time is crystal clear: they
want to muddy the water about the cleanup and are willing to invest a
few million dollars today in order to stop the EPA from forcing them to
pay hundreds of millions tomorrow, says Jay Burgess of Scenic Hudson.
POISONING THE DEBATE
Dredge supporters say GE has poisoned the debate by distorting the facts,
manipulating scientific evidence and, by sheer force of repetition, stirring
up unnecessary fear in upriver communities.
If you live along the river, its going to be like having
an offshore drilling rig in your backyard 24 hours a day, says Steve
Ramsey, GEs vice president for corporate environmental programs,
in the half-hour infomercial the company ran on upstate networks during
the public comment period.
Thats just ridiculous, retorts Ann Rychlenski, EPAs
project spokesperson. This is limited, targeted dredging. Out of
all the 40-mile stretch of the Upper Hudson River bottom that is contaminated,
we are talking about dredging 13 percent, not ripping up the river bottom
in its entirety, as GE would have people believe.
EPA has willfully ignored its own finding in 1984 that a massive
dredging program like the one proposed today would be devastating to the
river ecosystem, Ramsey says.
The infomercial shows navigational clamshell dredges spilling out contaminated
slurry, and trucks hauling sludge to toxic waste dumps (the implication
being that EPA is also secretly planning to build a sludge dump nearby,
which the agency denies).
EPA officials say the new proposal is different than the 1984 proposal.
Impartial experts empanelled by the National Academy of Sciences report
that dredging methods have improved considerably in the past 15 years,
with the addition of real-time water quality monitoring, global positioning
systems that help locate exact target coordinates, and the use of vacuum-like
hydraulic dredges which contain the sediments in a suction tube as they
are hauled up. Other engineering controls like sheet piling and silk curtains
are routinely used to contain any spillage.
In the 1984 decision, what we rejected was bank-to-bank dredging
over the 40-mile stretch. Thats not what were proposing here,
which is targeted dredging, says EPAs Rychlenski.
Its interesting to me that the same company that has been
touting the fact that the Hudson is coming back says nature cant
replenish itself if youre taking on any kind of remedy. The fact
is that this has been done elsewhere, and the biota comes back quickly.
Other government agencies responsible for monitoring the Hudson, including
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, also support EPAs dredging proposal.
THE BEST SCIENCE MONEY CAN BUY
Another flank of GEs strategy is to challenge the conventional wisdom
that PCBs are all that toxic to begin with. There is no credible
evidence that PCBs cause cancer, GE wrote in a 1999 report, a line
company officials including Jack Welch have repeated since.
Key to GEs claims is a company-sponsored study which concludes
(like two previous studies sponsored by the company) that workers at its
Fort Edward and Hudson Falls plants have not suffered from excess rates
of cancer.
The epidemiological study has been roundly criticized by occupational
health professionals and officials from the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). They say the study suffers from exposure
misclassification (by including individuals who worked at the plants but
had little to no exposure to PCBs), failure to account for the latency
period between exposure and appearance of cancer, and other biases. PCB
levels were actually measured in only 200 of the over 7,000 people in
the study. Nevertheless, the study did find excesses in three of
the six cancers of interest, the ATSDR officials noted in a published
letter criticizing the study.
Its noteworthy that the GE-funded study is the only one of
the major occupational PCB exposure studies that did not find some statistically
significant elevation of incidence of cancer, says Dr. David Carpenter
of the Albany School of Public Health. Every international group
of experts that has been asked to look at the issue has concluded that
they are proven to cause cancer in animals and are probable carcinogens
in humans. Carpenter adds that there can be no absolute proof that
PCBs (or any other chemical for that matter) cause cancer in humans because
theres no way to control for other exposures.
Theres just no doubt that PCBs are carcinogenic in the mind
of any independent scientist, Carpenter says. Its only
people with close ties to industries that have conflicts of interest that
would make such preposterous claims. Its very akin to the smoking,
cancer and tobacco industry story. To have a corporation like General
Electric deny that animal research, including research done by their own
laboratories proving PCBs cause cancer in rats, is relevant to whether
PCBs cause cancer in humans is ludicrous. Our whole system of study of
disease is based on animal research.
Although the companys position that PCBs dont cause cancer
has little credibility within the scientific community, observers say
its the court of public opinion that really matters. And by repeating
its position often in ads and public meetings
GE has been able to sow the seeds of doubt.
They want to cause public confusion, and make the argument appear
to seem scientifically complicated, because they know that oftentimes
the public will tune out as soon as it gets complicated, says Judith
Enck, a policy advisor to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
The study is also used to wear down third-party support for the cleanup.
The claim that PCBs dont cause cancer was brought out in April when
GE officials led by NBC president and GE Vice Chair Robert Wright met
privately with New York City Council members to lobby against a council
bill endorsing the dredging project. GEs Albany lobbyist, James
McMahon, sat in on the meeting, along with his brother Thomas, the City
Councils former finance director and a lobbyist with the Chamber
of Commerce.
Although New York City remains supportive of the project, 60 upstate
local municipalities have passed resolutions opposing EPAs plan
because of its immediate impact on businesses and recreational uses of
the waterway (at least 50 have passed resolutions supporting it).
To generate the resolutions, GE representatives and public relations specialists
have complemented their advertising and lobbying blitz with constituency-building
appearances before school groups, civic associations and sportsmens
groups, where they have sought support for GEs position.
But cleanup supporters say town leaders in some communities like Schuylerville,
which has taken a tough anti-dredging position, may have been influenced
by handouts from GE. Schuylerville received $30,000 from GE to fix a bathhouse
just three months after tests confirmed the presence of PCBs in a riverside
park.
I guarantee you we wouldnt have gotten that money if we had
not said we were against dredging, says Wendy Lukas, a village trustee.
GE officials say the payments are not unusual the company
donates an average of $14 million a year to schools, municipalities and
nonprofits in New York communities ($9 million in the Albany region alone),
regardless of their position on the dredging. The payments are just what
an upstanding corporate citizen does in a state where it has thousands
of employees, say company representatives.
INSIDE THE BELTWAY
U.S. EPA is expected to issue its final decision on the proposal to dredge
the Hudson River in August. Although few will venture to guess how EPA
will rule, many believe it is unlikely a Bush-era EPA will forcibly follow
up on the Clinton EPAs recommendation to dredge the Hudson.
I think theyre paralyzed right now, Hugh Kaufman, an
EPA hazardous waste specialist and internal watchdog says of the agency.
As governor of New Jersey, now-EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman
supported the dredging, because the contamination reached New York Harbor
where sediment is dredged to keep the Harbor open for deep shipping channels.
That was her position then, so the question is, will she be consistent,
says Judith Enck.
Whitman is not likely to feel much pressure from New York Governor George
Pataki, who supports dredging but has done little to back it up. Garey
Sheffer, an environmental policy advisor to the Pataki administration,
accepted a job with GE last year. Sheffer was recruited by GE without
applying for the position.
Some observers say EPA may defer a final decision to the regional branch
in Manhattan, thus insulating Whitman and the new administration from
having to deal with the consequences.
Others say the agency is likely to propose a pilot project to demonstrate
to local opponents how little impact dredging will have, a decision that
would effectively delay a full-scale cleanup for years.
Should Whitman or the regional office choose to follow through, however,
GE will probably try to head them off at the pass, in Congress.
If we see GE stepping up their activities in Congress, its
a good sign that EPAs going to hang tough, says Enck.
Its hard to imagine who will stop GE in Congress. The company has
been holstering some big guns inside the beltway to ensure that its interests
will be well represented: 17 lobbyists have been retained to work in Washington
on the contaminated sediments/natural resources damage issue,
including six ex-Members of Congress.
The team is led by Bob Livingston (the former Louisiana congressperson
and House Appropriations Committee chair), former New York congressperson
Gerald Solomon, a long-time GE booster whose old district includes the
capacitor factories, and ex-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of
Maine, who now heads the National Sediments Coalition.
GEs lobbyists have tried to keep EPA from dredging the Hudson by
attaching riders (unrelated provisions) to recent EPA appropriations bills.
The rider offered in 2000 would have blocked dredging of contaminated
sites across the nation, but was finally dropped under pressure from the
Clinton White House. Previously, the riders ordered the EPA to wait for
a National Academy of Sciences study on PCB-contaminated sediments before
taking any action.
In January, dredging opponent Representative John Sweeney, R-New York,
gained a seat on the House Appropriations Committee, the same place where
he and Solomon tacked on provisions to tie up dredging in the past.
If anti-dredging legislation does pass Congress, few expect President
Bush to exercise his veto power the way Clinton did to oppose anti-environmental
measures. Sweeneys former chief of staff, Brad Card, is the brother
of Andrew Card, President Bushs chief of staff.
FRONTING THE FIGHT
At least some of GEs largesse has gone directly to grassroots anti-dredging
groups like the Citizen Environmentalists Against Sludge Encapsulation
(CEASE) and Farmers Against Irresponsible Remediation (FAIR), two upper
river non-profits which act as the face of opposition to EPAs proposal.
Both groups have focused on the potential impacts of dredging, including
the environmental scars left from excavating backfill and contamination
from the treatment of the contaminated sediments.
CEASE president Tim Havens doesnt deny that his group has received
support from GE. The pro-dredgers cant think of anything else
to say, so thats what they say, he comments. GE has supplied
CEASE with rally signs, bumper stickers and supporting studies. Theyve
given us any information that they think would be helpful. Theyve
cooperated with us because were a modest group in terms of finances.
We dont work for them; were a non-profit volunteer organization
protecting our community. We just happen to be on the same side of the
issue.
FAIRs attorneys say they have also received technical support from
GE in filing objections to EPAs proposal since the EPA technical
assistant grants (allocated as part of the Superfund program to local
groups) were given to groups that support the proposal.
Not surprisingly, both groups tend to downplay GEs culpability.
One of the big reasons GE doesnt want dredging is that they
dont want the contingent liability of having to be responsible for
other contaminants in the river that other companies put in there,
Havens says. This project was put forth for strictly political reasons.
They dont give a damn about the Hudson. The only reason they want
this river dredged is there is a lot of money to be made by some private
dredging contractor somewhere. Under Superfund law, it doesnt have
to be put out to bid. The whole thing is flawed, crooked from day one.
But not everyone in upstate New York opposes the dredging. In fact, support
is strong even in the GE-lobbied riverside communities, where a divided
audience attended public hearings held in December.
A public opinion survey conducted last fall by the Marist Institute for
Public Opinion for Scenic Hudson, a regional environmental group that
has advocated for the PCB cleanup for two decades, found that 91 percent
of those surveyed who had not seen General Electrics ads supported
the river cleanup, while 73 percent of those who had seen the ads supported
dredging. Residents of Albany and northern areas more divided
over the issue still leaned towards cleaning up the river,
although GEs advertising blitz had clearly eroded support.
Despite General Electrics massive, multimillion-dollar advertising
program designed to create anti-cleanup sentiments among the public, this
poll shows what Hudson Valley residents want to see happen, says
Ned Sullivan, executive director of Scenic Hudson. General Electric
should spend its money to lay the groundwork for a timely cleanup, not
on efforts to misinform citizens.
YOU OWE IT TO GOD
Such a change of heart is not likely to happen anytime soon, at least
not on Jack Welchs watch. Welch told Pat Daly, a Dominican nun from
the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility that she owe[s]
it to God to be on the side of truth here after she suggested at
the companys 1998 shareholders meeting that GEs position
on PCBs was like tobacco companies claim that smoking was harmless.
More may be at stake than Jack Welchs personal legacy when it comes
to cleaning up GEs PCB mess. Environmentalists say the Hudson River
is only the tip of GEs PCB waste barrel.
The stuff is all over the place, says Walter Hang, an investigator
with Toxic Targeting, Inc. who has mapped 40 PCB-contaminated sites in
the upper Hudson River basin alone. Thirteen of the 40 sites have been
designated as a significant threat to the public health or environment
by New Yorks Department of Environmental Conservation because PCBs
are still leaching into the river or other parts of the environment.
State and federal data indicate that many of the sites are where old capacitors
and contaminated soil (some generated by navigational dredging of the
river) have been dumped.
And the problem doesnt stop with sites officially recognized by
state and federal officials. GE sold or gave away thousands of cubic yards
of PCB-contaminated soil for use as clean fill around peoples
homes, driveways, along roadbanks and to sand roads in the wintertime.
GE has never disclosed its past dumping practices, and nobody has
ever tested for dioxin anywhere near these places, Hang says. Nor
have many of the identified sites like the Hudson
been adequately contained.
One of the 40 dumps is the Dewey Loeffel Landfill in Nassau. According
to the New York Attorney Generals office, GE and other companies
dumped more than 46,000 tons of PCBs, heavy metals and other toxic wastes
at the site during the 1950s and 1960s more than twice the
amount dumped at Love Canal.
The landfill was closed in 1970. GE reached a settlement with the state
and, in 1984, the company capped the site with clay. Nevertheless, toxic
chemicals continue to seep into groundwater because of a 70-foot crack
in the bedrock under the site, while runoff from PCB-contaminated soil
flows out into nearby Nassau Lake.
In 1999, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
changed the status of the Dewey Loeffel site from Class 4 (remediated)
to Class 2 (posing a significant health risk).
Residents say GE is currently remediating contaminated soil in a pond
immediately outside the landfill, where the contamination is highest,
but is not being forced to clean up lower-level contamination in Nassau
Lake or to prevent the PCBs that have already been released from spreading
all the way down to the Hudson River, 10 miles away.
Our lake will be clean in about 3,000 years,
says Kelly Travers-Main, a local citizen activist, who adds that although
there are fish advisories on the books, there are no signs posted at Nassau
Lake.
TOXIC PITTS
GE has worked equally hard to limit its potential liability from other
sites where it built or serviced transformers and capacitors, including
at Pittsfield, Massachusetts and Rome, Georgia. Critics say that may be
because each of these sites like the Hudson River site
is only one of many created by corporate practices that spread toxic soil
and PCB-contaminated oil around the community.
The old GE transformer plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts is one such
toxic hub. Unlike Hudson River communities, public opinion in Pittsfield
turned towards dredging in the early 1990s, when GE cut production at
the plant and idled thousands of workers. Many ex-workers joined the fight
to get the company to clean up its mess before it closed the plant altogether.
By 1999, GE signed a 404-page agreement with EPA which committed the
company to spend between $200 million and $750 million to clean up the
site for redevelopment, and to remove toxic sediment from a two-mile stretch
of the Housatonic River immediately downstream of the site.
Critics say that although the plan calls for monitoring and cleanup further
downstream, that portion of the plan is likely to be delayed for years.
Since 1982, there has been a fish consumption ban in effect for 85 miles
of the river from Pittsfield all the way south through Connecticut to
the Long Island Sound.
Nor are nearby property owners as satisfied with the agreement as the
EPA, since it leaves only $1 million to clean up residential properties.
Local residents say PCB-contaminated soils were dumped all over town since
GE donated PCB-contaminated soil to Pittsfield homeowners
and schools to use as fill for their yards and playgrounds.
EPA officials say that, after 20 years of negotiating with GE, the agreement
is a good compromise (as in New York, GE used a variety of hardball tactics,
including veiled threats to close the remaining plant in Pittsfield, full-page
ads questioning the health risks of PCBs and threats to tie EPA up in
court, as well as efforts to obtain state-level legislative relief
from its cleanup liabilities).
EPA also says the cleanup plan includes a reopener clause
that keeps GE responsible for contamination discovered in the future.
But local critics say that clause is not likely to be exercised, since
it may threaten the companys willingness to proceed with the cleanup.
WHEN IN ROME
PCBs were also used as an insulating fluid in transformers made in Rome,
Georgia from 1953 until 1977. The resulting contamination has shown up
in drainage ditches, sewer lines, parks, an elementary school and numerous
private homes.
Although Steve Ramsey, GEs vice president for environmental programs,
told local reporters that its safe to say that we know pretty
much everything there is to know about conditions at the plant site,
no one knows how extensive the contamination is off site, since the PCBs
from the sewer lines ended up mixing with sludge at the Rome waste water
treatment plant. Farmers and gardeners were given the sludge as fertilizer
during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
GE also sold PCB waste oils to an undetermined number of employees for
use as a dust suppressant, wood preservative and termite deterrent from
1953 to at least 1969.
In April, PCBs were found at 24,000 parts per million in soil at the
home of a former GE employee. (2 ppm in surface soils is the level EPA
used as a goal for cleaning up Anniston, Alabama residential areas near
Monsantos PCB manufacturing plant). A concentration of 3,000 ppm
was found in the crawl space of a second home, and PCBs at 100 ppm were
found in a garden at a third.
GE and the Law
Jack Welch told 60 Minutes last fall that we
didnt dump [the PCBs]. We had a permit from the U.S. government
and the State of New York to do exactly what we did.
In fact, GE did not have a permit to dump PCBs in the Hudson River
until the mid-1970s, when the Clean Water Act came into force. By
then most of the PCB dumping had already occurred.
Critics argue that GE should have taken action long before federal
laws required a permit. For instance, language in a 1970 sales contract
between GE and Monsanto proves the company knew PCBs were a problem
when they were still dumping them directly into the Hudson River:
It is understood that the products sold hereunder contain
polychlorinated biphenyls, which some studies have shown may be
an environmental contaminant. Buyer agrees to use its best efforts
to prevent such products from entering into the environment through
spills, leakage, use, disposal, vaporization or otherwise.
In 1976, the state of New York held hearings on the PCB problem
after the federal government declared the chemical a public health
menace. Abraham Sofaer, a Columbia University law professor who
presided over the hearings, judged GE guilty of violating state
water quality standards, even though the company had a discharge
permit. These unlawful consequences are the product of both
corporate abuse and regulatory failure, Sofaer wrote. The
decision led New York to negotiate with GE. Jack Welch represented
the company.
Although GE continues to claim its actions were not illegal, under
federal Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, CERCLA) responsible parties are liable for the
cost of cleanup whether or not the pollution was legal at the time
it occurred and whether or not the company was following accepted
business practices.
The strength of CERCLA prompted GE to file suit last November to
try to take away EPAs ability to order Superfund site cleanups.
The company claims that the law is unconstitutional because it gives
the EPA uncontrolled authority to order intrusive remedial
projects of unlimited scope and duration.
GE charges that EPAs authority to issue unilateral orders
violates the companys right to due process by failing to provide
any kind of neutral hearing prior to EPAs order and by failing
to provide timely and meaningful judicial review even after a unilateral
EPA order.
This is an Alice-in-Wonderland regime of punishment first,
trial afterwards, says Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe,
who has represented GE in the case.
We dont think [GEs lawsuit] will fly, says
David Gordon, an attorney for Riverkeeper, a Hudson River environmental
group which filed an amicus brief against the company. Theres
no constitutional requirement that an agency have a formal public
hearing before they come out with a ruling on a variety of different
issues. In fact, GE has been heard amply in this proceeding. Theyve
had 70 to 100 public meetings and numerous opportunities to communicate
with EPA through meetings and written comments. The idea that GE
has not been heard is just ridiculous.
C.C.
Chairman Jack Speaks
Jack Says: The word dump is used! We didn't dump!
We had a permit from the U.S. government and the State of New York
to do exactly what we did. Do you think I'd come to work in a company
that would do that or condone that? I wouldn't do it, Lesley! This
is nuts! Jack Welch's response to Lesley Stahl's
question about GE's pollution of the Hudson River (CBS News Transcripts,
60 MINUTES, October 29, 2000)
THE RECORD: In fact, in 1976, a New York State administrative
law judge found that GE's discharges were in violation of permits
and violated water quality laws. Although in 1970 GE had been warned
by Monsanto the manufacturer of PCBs to
prevent PCBs from entering the environment, GE discharged PCBs until
1977.
Jack Says: We don't believe there are any significant
health effects from PCBs. (GE, Cinergy Map Future For
Shareholders, by Mike Boyer, The Cincinnati Enquirer, April
23, 1998)
THE RECORD: In fact, PCBs are recognized by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer and are regulated by the federal government
as probable carcinogens. New research has provided further
evidence of the link between PCBs and malignant melanoma, non-Hodgkins
lymphoma and other cancers. Studies also have linked PCBs with non-cancer
health effects such as damage to the immune system, development,
disease resistance, reproduction, learning and behavior. Some research
suggests that PCBs pose a special risk for infants and children.
In April, President Bush discussed the dangers of these persistent
chemicals and declared that: concerns over the hazards of
PCBs, DDT and the other toxic chemicals ... are based on solid scientific
information. These pollutants are linked to developmental defects
of cancer and other grave problems in humans and animals. The risks
are great and the need for action is clear: We must work to eliminate
or at least to severely restrict the release of these toxins without
delay. For more information on the dangers of PCBs, see http://www.ipen.org/lester.htm
Jack Says: Let me just tell you, as I tried to tell
you in my report, we use sound scientific principles, we move forward
and clean up past legal issues and we have no qualms at all about
spending the right amount of money to get it done. To throw money
at subjects that do not require it makes no sense.
Jack Welch responding to shareholders who wondered why GE simply
did not bite the bullet and pay for Hudson cleanup. (Bottom
line is GE must fight it, by Kenneth Arraon, The Times Union,
December 10, 2000)
THE RECORD: After a decade of study, the Hudson River is
the most studied Superfund site in the country. The scientific studies
have been completed. The river is not cleaning itself and the threat
to public health is not going away. After a review by five panels
of independent experts, the EPA recommended that the river be cleaned
up.
Jack Says: For us, this is not about money. We will
spend whatever it takes to do the right thing. This is about fighting
for what we believe. Jack Welch on how much GE
is spending on lobbying and advertising to fight the EPA's plan
to have GE pay for dredging of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson River
contaminated with PCBs. (GE Chief Acknowledges Changeover
at Annual Meeting, by Russell Grantham, Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, April 26, 2001)
THE RECORD: GE is indeed spending millions of dollars to
develop arguments against a cleanup of the Hudson River and millions
more on public relations to spread that message, but the issue may
not be entirely based on principle, as Welch implies. There may
be some concern about liability down the road because GE is partially
or wholly responsible for at least 78 toxic Superfund sites nationally.
A team of 17 high-powered lobbyists is working on GEs behalf
in Washington to undo the companys liability.
GE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS ON
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS/NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ISSUES
Senator George Mitchell, D-ME, Verner, Lipfert,
Bernhard, McPherson and Hand law firm.
Rep. Bob Livingston, R-LA, The Livingston Group
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-NY, The Solomon Group
Rep. Jimmy Hayes, D-LA, Adams and Reese LLP
Rep. Vic Fazio, D-CA, Clark and Weinstock
Rep. Vin Weber, R-MN, Clark and Weinstock
Rep. Bill Brewster, D-OK, R. Duffy Wall and Associates
Peter Prowitt, former staff for Senator Mitchell,
GE company lobbyist
Rob Wallace, former staff for Senator Wallop,
GE company lobbyist
Keith Cole, former House Commerce Committee staff,
Executive Director, National Sediments Coalition,
Swidler & Berlin law firm
Phil Cummings, former staff for Senate Environment
& Public Works Committee, The Accord Group
Jim Matthews, former staff for Rep. Tom Manton,
Clark and Weinstock
Lee Forsgren, former staff Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Adams and Reese LLP
George Mannina Jr., former staff, House Merchant Marine
Committee, OConnor & Hannan
Bob Barrie, OConner & Hannan law firm
Patricia Casano, former Department of Justice staff attorney,
GE company lobbyist
Larry A. Boggs, GE company lobbyist
|
|