Health Advisory on Eating Fish Caught in the Hudson River

Three EPA Advisory Groups
Reject EPA
Dredging Proposal

A Joint Press Release from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Hudson River Superfund Site's

Agricultural Liaison Committee
Citizens Liaison Committee
Governmental Liaison Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 3, 2001

EPA's Own Citizen Groups Give
EPA Dredging Plan Vote of No Confidence

The elected officials, agricultural representatives and citizens appointed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to advise them on issues related to the Hudson River Reassessment called EPA's dredging plan "the wrong answer" - an environmental disaster which provides absolutely no benefit to the river, its wildlife or local communities.

"Members of EPA's Governmental Liaison Committee are local elected officials who are compelled to take action against threats to our constituents' health, safety and general welfare," said Paul Lilac, vice-chair of that organization. "There is no larger threat to our community's well-being than EPA's ill-advised and unjustified dredging campaign. That's why the elected leaders of more than 60 upper river communities are not confident EPA has their best interests in mind and have taken stands against dredging." 

The chairs and vice-chairs of EPA's Governmental, Citizens and Agricultural Committees opposed EPA's proposal to dredge 2.65 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from the Upper Hudson River in comments submitted to the Agency today. 

"We're the elected officials and concerned citizens that EPA invited to meet with over the years to provide input on their so-called 'science,'" said Judy Schmidt-Dean, chair of EPA's Citizens Liaison Group. "The fact is, their science doesn't justify an enormous dredging project. Their data show that dredging will not reduce PCB levels in fish faster than what is already happening. Yet we know that dredging will cause major disruption to local communities, our economy and the river's environment. It makes no sense to proceed with this project at this time, when conditions in the river are better than they ever have been."

Tom Borden, chair of EPA's Agricultural Liaison Group, added, "The stigma of operating farmland near a major, messy Superfund cleanup will be extremely detrimental to farmers trying to sell their product to an already competitive market. These are the real risks of dredging, as opposed to the theoretical health risks posed to an unidentified group of lawless fishermen who don't abide by the current ban and eat large amounts of Upper Hudson fish."

The representatives criticized EPA for ignoring their well-voiced concerns about dredging. "When we first agreed to join EPA's liaison committees, we did so believing that EPA was dedicated to active and meaningful community participation," said Judy Schmidt-Dean. "Ten years later, we can say emphatically that, despite the number of meetings EPA held on this issue, they never heard our concerns or our opposition. Even the National Academy of Sciences concluded that EPA's Hudson River public participation process was a failure."

Make your comment to EPA count

______________________________________________________________

The EPA says dredging is the only way to clean the Hudson. They're wrong.

A Better Way

GE's source control program, along with the river's natural recovery, is a safer, better way.  GE's program has already reduced PCB's going into the river from 5 pounds per day to 3 ounces.  GE's new technology will finish the job.  What's more, GE's clean-up won't cause the environmental and community disruption that will result from EPA's massive dredging program.

The EPA will only accept public comment through April 17th, so let your voice be heard today. It's easy and fast. Just call. 
1-877-9HUDSON or TAKE ACTION NOW.

______________________________________________________________