GE wins appeal of Superfund cleanup law

[kcvl]

Friday, March 5, 2004

GE wins appeal of Superfund cleanup law By Dan Shapley Poughkeepsie Journal

General Electric Co.'s challenge to Superfund law was revived this week, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a year-old district court decision that had dismissed the case. GE argues the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to impose unilateral orders on private companies to clean up Superfund sites is unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case does not challenge any particular EPA order, but rather the law itself.

The 12-page decision came down Tuesday, throwing the case back into district court, which will hear arguments between GE and the EPA at a date to be scheduled.

While GE maintains the federal court battle would not affect its cooperation in the $500 million Hudson River PCB cleanup or at other Superfund sites nationwide, environmentalists and some politicians say it undermines the company's credibility and contradicts its cooperation in planning for the dredging project to begin in 2006.

''This case will not affect agreements that we have made on the Hudson River,'' GE spokesman Mark Behan said.

Under previous agreements, GE has spent $50 million so far taking samples, designing the dredging project and reimbursing the EPA for some of its costs, Behan said.

Dredging negotiated

Agreements between GE and the EPA over the dredging itself, however, are still under negotiation.

''What's critical on the Hudson River is we still do not have a final agreement. While they have agreed to do the planning and design, this challenge ... could have an impact, depending on how those negotiations do or do not play out,'' said Rich Schiafo, a project manager for Scenic Hudson, an environmental group based in Poughkeepsie.

GE is liable for the cost of dredging PCBs from the muck along a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson north of Albany because over decades it discharged upwards of 1.1 million pounds of the oil from its capacitor manufacturing plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward. PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, contaminate fish riverwide and have been linked to cancer and other health problems in humans.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, said the case, if decided in GE's favor, could undermine the EPA's efforts to clean up toxic sites nationwide, including in the Hudson River.

Since 1980, the EPA has issued 1,000 orders under the provision GE is challenging, according to the Associated Press.

''At this point, we're proceeding with our Superfund enforcements under existing law, and we're confident that the constitutionality of Superfund will be upheld,'' EPA spokeswoman Bonnie Bellow said.

[kcvl]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, said the case, if decided in GE's favor, could undermine the EPA's efforts to clean up toxic sites nationwide, including in the Hudson River.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[drlevy88]

Was GE the only one who dumped this stuff there?

[Jaysun]

Thank God! Environmentalist have way too much power over private companies. In fact, the Soviets recognized environmentalism as an effective tool against free enterprise. Mohmmar Qadaffi wrote a book on the subject. I say that if the environmentalist want to stop a company from building houses on land that has some "rare" animal living on it - they should have to compensate the company for cost and lost profits. As it stands now, any nutjob can leave a company in complete ruin (whether their environmental claim is valid or not) and that isn't right.

[The Raven]

>>Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, said the case, if decided in GE's favor, could undermine the EPA's efforts to clean up toxic sites nationwide,

The libs would also need to rewrite the Constituion's fifth amendment

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[CajunConservative]

What about if you own property on a highly contaminated piece of property and can't get them to clean it up? I am in that position right now. My family has leases with several companies and their disregard for the environment has left a once thriving estuary ruined. If the companies would simply follow the procedures set in place to minimize contamination it would be cheaper in the long run.

I am all for businesses making money, however, when you have had a whole lot of family members die of cancer who just happened to live along the waterways that were contaminated it kind of changes your perspective a little bit.

All we want is for them to be responsible when conducting their day to day business so that our ground water and soil is safe, our rivers and lakes are still usable and our property retains its value. Isn't that what you would want if it was your property?

[Jaysun]

All we want is for them to be responsible when conducting their day to day business so that our ground water and soil is safe, our rivers and lakes are still usable and our property retains its value. Isn't that what you would want if it was your property?

Absolutely, and you should have the liberty to sue them into oblivion. I was speaking of the ridiculous practice in which environmentalist control companies with nonsensical arguments. I think that health and human safety are first. I do not think that an environmentalist should be able to single handedly stop a company from operating because they claim that a red bellied caterpillar inhabits the area 10 miles west of Bum-F*ck Egypt. My point is that their goal is too often one of control rather than genuine concern.

[always vigilant]

If my memory serves me correctly, what GE did in the past, and is now being forced to clean up, was perfectly legal. The laws at the time allowed GE to discharge what they did.