- Nearing, Brian. "Environmental Groups Push Gov. Cuomo on PCB Hudson Cleanup." Times Union. September 10, 2015. Accessed October 03, 2015. http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Environmental-groups-push-Gov-Cuomo-on-PCB-6497137.php.
- What two (or more) quotes capture the message of the article?
- Environmental groups claimed that fish test results were skewed in a way that benefits GE by making PCB levels appear lower than they actually were, which could limit the company's liability for potential environmental damages to the river. "There are likely more PCBs in Hudson River fish than GE has been reporting, calling into question the success of the cleanup," according to the letter.
- The governor is reportedly wooing GE to move its Connecticut headquarters to New York, and in July visited with GE executives there.
- What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?
- The main point of this article is that GE’s tests to measure PCBs in Hudson River fish has been called into question by a number of parties. Since 2003, GE has been gradually working it’s way down the Hudson from Fort Edward, dredging the sediment of PCB-contaminated sediment and carting it away to be processed. A scientist at the NYS Attorney General’s Office has stated that GE’s methods for testing PCB levels in fish has been “systematically underreporting by as much as 75%”. The ultimate argument being made is that GE has an incentive to make the PCB issues appear smaller than they actually are, to avoid having to put more money into the project. With this finding, several environmental groups with ties to the Hudson wrote a letter to Governor Cuomo urging him to look into the matter. Considering that the dredging project will be completed by the end of October of 2015, this could have major ramifications when it comes to GE’s involvement in cleaning up the Hudson.
- What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions.)
- EPA – Being the United State’s environmental regulatory agency, they oversaw the dredging project that was operated by GE.
- General Electric – They are the responsible party for releasing the PCB’s into the Hudson River from their Fort Edward plant. The PCBs were discovered in the Hudson in the 1960’s, but dredging was not approved until the late 90’s. The PCBs were used in electrical transformers made by GE (and several other companies) until 1977.
- NYS DEC – NYS’s environmental regulatory agency was created in the year 1970, the same as the EPA. While the EPA and DEC are two separate entities, they are very similar in nature and work together on several projects (such as the Hudson dredging)
- NYS Governor Cuomo – Democratic Governor Cuomo has been governor of NYS since 2011. As typical of the party, he is pro-environment and during his term placed a ban on hydro-fracking in the state.
- Environmental Groups – Groups such as the Environmental Defense Council, Scenic Hudson, and River Keeper have been keeping an eye on the Hudson dredging project since it’s inception. They were the ones who wrote the letter to Governor Cuomo.
- What kind of causation or responsibility is argued or implied in the article?
- The article states that GE is neglecting their responsibility to clean/remove PCB’s from the Hudson by using a method of testing that systematically provides lower PCB concentrations in fish. The environmental groups who brought this to the attention of Governor Cuomo believe that GE should continue their work past 2015.
- How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
- The only equity issue brought up is that since GE was the company who put the PCB’s in the Hudson, they should be the ones to clean it up. Since the levels of PCB’s in fish may be higher than reported, they should continue or evolve their work to solve the problem.
- What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?
- One issue that I know the article seems to ignore is that while dredging removes PCB’s from the river sediments (from which fish would receive their food from farther down the food chain), it does not have any effect on PCB’s that are already in the fish. PCB’s are fat-soluble and tend to collect in the reproductive organs of fish and are passed down for several generations.
- The whole reason the dredging project was created was that through various forms of testing, it was found that PCB levels in fish would return to “safe level” earlier than if the dredging were not to be done.
- So to say that the PCB levels are higher in the fish than previously expected cannot immediately be blamed on GE’s lack of effort when it comes to dredging. The PCB levels will persist throughout the river system even when a majority is taken out of the sediment.
- It could be that the way of measuring the PCB levels in the fish is in fact faulty, but that wouldn’t necessarily be GE’s fault. It would go back all the way to that first dredging v. no-dredging study that said the fish would be safe to eat earlier.
- Most of this information came from various lectures by Dr. Richard Bopp.
Loading...