|
PCB cleanup
in Upper Hudson
delayed for another year
NY
Times - 3/11
The
dredging of the upper Hudson River to remove the toxic residue
of its industrial past — already stalled many times by squabbles
over science and culpability — has been delayed again.
Federal
environmental officials said yesterday that an additional year
would be needed for planning and design beyond the three years
already allotted. That means that the first scoop of polluted
mud would not be removed until spring 2006 at the earliest and
that the projected completion date would be six years later.
The
federal Environmental Protection Agency's regional administrator
for New York, Jane M. Kenny, said in an interview that the complexity
of the project — and the need for good relations with anxious
upstate residents whose communities will be affected — were
the main causes of what she called a "slipping" of the
schedule. The government, she stressed, remains committed to the
project, which will be one of the largest environmental restoration
efforts in United States history at a cost of nearly $500 million.
"Our
eyes are on the prize; we're going to be dredging this river,"
she said. "But we want to make sure it's done safely and
done right."
Environmentalists
expressed dismay that the slow pattern of the past was continuing.
"It's discouraging to see so early in the process a one-year
delay, and raises concern about what kind of delays we'll see
later," said Ned Sullivan, the president of Scenic Hudson,
a conservation group based in Poughkeepsie.
Most
environmentalists, including Mr. Sullivan, said they feared that
the General Electric Company, which polluted the river with PCB's
from its plants north of Albany, then battled the government for
years over how and whether to clean up the mud, was behind the
delay.
The
company used PCB's, or polychlorinated biphenyls, for about three
decades in its factories in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls. By the
time Congress banned PCB's in 1976, as much as one million pounds
or more of the oily yellow insulating chemical — a probable
human carcinogen, according to the government — had leaked
or been spilled into the river, where much of it settled to the
bottom.
A
company spokesman, Mark L. Behan, stressed that the request for
more time had not come from G.E. Mr. Behan said the company had
met every deadline set by the government since the final decision
to dredge was announced in the summer of 2001. The first core
samples to pinpoint where the dredging should be concentrated
began last fall, and the first lab results, he said, were recently
delivered, right on schedule.
Ms.
Kenny at the E.P.A. agreed that the government had made the decision.
She said making sure that local residents, many of whom are skeptical
about the project, have ample opportunity to participate in the
planning process is all by itself a major undertaking.
Before
the dredging starts, one or two huge plants must also be built
to remove water from the dredged mud, as well as an extensive
system to haul the mud away by rail or barge, since the government
has promised local communities not to use trucks for transport
because of concerns about traffic volume and air pollution.
In
a related development, a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan
ruled yesterday that documents related to the negotiations between
G.E. and the government over the Hudson cleanup were subject to
the federal Freedom of Information Act and should be released
to the public. The New York Public Interest Research Group had
sued the E.P.A. and the federal Office of Management and Budget
seeking the papers, but government lawyers said the documents
were confidential.
The
judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, held that the exemptions cited by
the government did not apply.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without
permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of
criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair
use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials
may not be distributed further, except for "fair use,"
without permission of the copyright owner.
|