[Savviers]

November 21, 2005

Internal Federal Memo Casts Doubts on Hudson Cleanup

By ANTHONY DePALMA

A federal conservation official has raised serious doubts about the recently approved plan to scrape hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of hazardous chemicals from the bottom of the Hudson River, and raised the possibility that the long-delayed cleanup may never be completed.

The official, a coastal resources expert in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a confidential memo that General Electric intends to leave substantial amounts of contaminants in the river, capping them with additional material rather than removing them. But the cap could be washed away in a storm, releasing the remaining PCB's beneath, the memo said.

The official also said G.E.'s plan - one of the largest industrial cleanups ever attempted - would not do enough to rebuild the natural habitat destroyed by the cleanup, but would leave nature to take its course, an approach that would reduce the chances that the river bottom would ever recover.

The memo questioned the plan's chance of success, saying that the "long-term recovery of the system may be delayed, projected time frame to achieve reduction in PCB's may be extended and residual injury to natural resources may increase."

G.E., which has not yet seen the memo, reached a binding agreement last month with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to go ahead with the cleanup. Strong opposition from another federal agency is itself not enough to derail the project, but it is likely to intensify the opposition of community groups and environmental organizations that have fought for decades to force G.E. to accept responsibility for cleaning up the environmental mess created by its factories on the Hudson.

The memo was sent to the E.P.A. in October, but it has not been made public. A copy was given to The New York Times by Riverkeeper, an environmental organization that has questioned the effectiveness of G.E.'s cleanup plan.

The apparent rift within the federal government suggests that an issue that had been simmering for years - and seemed to be resolved last month - may yet have more chapters to play out.

The binding agreement requires G.E. to dredge 43 miles of the Hudson River stretching from Hudson Falls to Troy, N.Y., a $700 million project that could be undertaken in two phases over six years, if there are no interruptions.

G.E. resisted the cleanup for nearly three decades after PCB's, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were discovered in the river, contending that dredging them would do more harm than simply leaving them in place. Last month it agreed to drop its opposition as part of a consent decree with the E.P.A. and the United States Department of Justice, though opponents questioned the company's commitment.

PCB's were once widely used in the production of electrical transformers. By the time the chemicals were banned in 1976, large amounts had been discharged into the Hudson and had settled into the mud on the river bottom. They are believed to pose a continuing threat to the environment and to people who eat fish caught in the river.

The E.P.A. tentatively approved G.E.'s plan as part of last month's agreement, subject to a review and final adjustments.

The agency has rejected the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's suggestion that problems in carrying out the first phase of the project, a compact area of 80 acres that is scheduled to be cleaned starting in 2007, would reduce the likelihood of proceeding to the second, larger phase, which would extend over many miles of the river.

"We don't believe that the design of the plan will have a deleterious effect on Phase 2 of the project," said Mary Mears, a spokeswoman in E.P.A.'s New York office. "It is and it remains our intention to see this project through to its end and to make sure it is successful."

But for those who oppose G.E.'s handling of the Hudson's restoration, the memo is yet another sign that the E.P.A. is not being firm enough with the corporation.

"Regardless of what this document is, why is the E.P.A. ignoring its well-reasoned conclusions?" said Robert Goldstein, a lawyer with Riverkeeper. "And what does this say about the ability of the E.P.A. to compel G.E. to do anything?"

A G.E. spokesman said he was unaware of the existence of the confidential memo. He said the cleanup has long been considered a two-part project, and he insisted that the corporation was not trying to avoid the second phase.

"We've designed the project to meet the standards set by the E.P.A., and therefore it is designed to succeed based on E.P.A.'s criteria," said the G.E. spokesman, Gary Sheffer. "This will be one of the most watched environmental cleanups in history."

The comments of a number of community groups, individuals and state agencies that raised concerns about the plan are included in the public file. But the critical memo from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is not. Ms. Mears of the E.P.A. said it is an interagency document that was never intended to be made public.

Rather, she said, the agency solicits independent opinions from experts in other departments to help it as it proceeds with the cleanup of major Superfund sites like the Hudson River.

Those experts form what is called a Biological Technical Assistance Group, which reviews draft documents and offers advice on how the agency should proceed.

"The staff uses the information to inform their opinions," Ms. Mears said. The agency is not obligated to follow suggestions made by the experts, and in this case, she said, the writer of the comment "may be a little outside her area of expertise."

The author of the memo, Lisa Rosman, is a coastal resources expert with the oceanic and atmospheric administration, which is concerned principally with the recovery of the river's natural habitats and has been involved in negotiations over the Hudson cleanup for decades. She did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Late last month, the E.P.A. issued a 72-page response to the G.E. plan, commenting on 228 separate points raised by the community and by the agency itself.

Some of the confidential memo's criticisms are also raised, including what appears to be G.E.'s overreliance on capping the river bottom rather than trying to remove all or nearly all of the contaminated mud.

But the E.P.A. does not address the memo's broader concerns about the possible cancellation of the second phase, which would lead to the failure of the whole project.

That omission from the agency's response is already providing ammunition to those who believe that the government is allowing G.E. too much leeway.

"The project is designed to fail," said Manna Jo Greene, environmental director of Clearwater, a Hudson River environmental organization. "The E.P.A. now has to listen to the counsel of its sister agencies and the community at large."

• Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company