- Full citation and abstract?
- Nearing, Brian. "Crude Oil Project on Back Burner." Times Union, May 22, 2015. Accessed September 27, 2015. http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Crude-oil-project-on-back-burner-6280097.php.
- This article outlines the DEC’s decision to require more information from Global Partners (a huge oil refining company) that the construction of an oil heating facility in the Port of Albany would not have any negative environmental effects. The DEC had originally given them the go-ahead in late 2013, even while EPA officers criticized the decision (the EPA thought the DEC wasn’t investigating/asking for enough data). The only thing keeping Global from building the facility was a moratorium put in place by the AC DOH.
- This all being said, the DEC did not deny the permit, they just required more information on the potential environmental impacts. At the same time as this, the DEC also announced their plan to put a permanent air quality monitor in the south end near the Port of Albany.
- Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project.
- Brian Nearing is a reporter for the Albany Times Union and is their environment and science reporter. He has had several publications in the Times Union regarding the oil trains in Albany that I have either read or annotated in the past.
- What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
- NYS recanted their decision to approve an oil heating facility that had plans to be constructed at the Port of Albany. They are requesting more information from Global Partners on the possible environmental/health impacts of building the facility.
- In the year/year and a half that this “oil-train situation” has been going on, the DEC received more than 19,000 comments expressing concern about the planned construction of the facility. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Scenic Hudson, and River keeper, along with several Albany area politicians, all spoke out against the planned building.
- The DEC also announced a permanent air quality monitor that will be installed in the south end. Given that a elevated levels of benzene were found in the area in the summer of 2014, the monitor is welcomed by the community.
- Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported
- Look at bottom question.
- What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
- “Amid neighborhood concerns over air pollution around the Port of Albany from massive crude oil trains, the state pulled back an earlier ruling that a proposed crude oil heating project — a potential processor of Canadian tar sands oil — would not pose any environmental threat.”
- “This month, amid reports that DEC was poised to issue a permit to Global, regional EPA Administrator Judith Enck demanded that DEC provide a draft permit to federal regulators before making a final decision. A year earlier, EPA had challenged DEC's acceptance of Global-provided air pollution figures used to review the project.”
- "I find it very disturbing, the way DEC has framed the issue," Amato added. "DEC's position seems to be that residents of the South End may be no worse off than anyone else who is breathing really bad air elsewhere in the state. That is a lackadaisical approach to people's health."
- What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
- The reporter took most of his information from government publications (DEC and EPA mainly) and some from citizens of the area. Nearing has been following this issue for a while.
- How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
- Like most news having to do with the oil trains in Albany, there is this central argument of a poor, high minority community (south end) who cannot defend themselves from the bigger oil/train companies.
- Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
- I have been unable to find any other articles, journals, or reports which reference or discuss this document.
- Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
- Since it is a newspaper article, there isn’t a bibliography, but it is from the same author who has been covering this topic for several years at this point. He has put in a lot of time going through government publications and conducting interviews to provide this information.
- What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?
- One thing that I was having trouble understanding, was why having an oil heating facility built in Albany was even a possibility, considering the fact that the AC DOH commissioner, James Crucetti, had placed several moratoria surrounding the heating of tar sands in March of 2014.
- Well apparently, when Global wanted to expand their oil heating facilities and bring tar sands into the area, they needed the permission of a couple of different groups. Number one was the NY State DEC and the other was the Albany County DOH (I’m not sure exactly how DOH offices work. Is the Albany County DOH just a separate branch of the NYS DOH? Or is it it’s own entity?). The DEC requested proof that what Global would be doing would not be harmful to the environment, which apparently the DEC was only too eager to grant and did not originally call for any testing. As outlined in this article, it was little more than an email from Global to the DEC saying “we promise it’s safe.”
- The AC DOH was not so easily swayed however, and in March of 2014 the commissioner put in place several moratoria around the heating of tar sands, which can be found here. With Global threatening a potential lawsuit for delaying their permit, Albany County decided to enlist a legal firm to defend them (article can be found here).
- Fast forward to May 2015 and the situation is mainly the same as it was a year earlier. The moratorium placed by the AC DOH is still in place, yet the DEC has given them the go ahead. Essentially, since Global has permission from the DEC, if they are not granted a permit by May 21, then Global could sue (the state?) for delay of the permit. Then on May 21, the DEC recants their decision and says that more proof that the building of an oil heating facility would not lead to any environmental damage (outlined in the article that is the topic of this annotation).
Loading...