The Daily Item
Advocates accuse GE of polluting waterway
written by Chris Stevens
Thursday October 22, 2009
SAUGUS - According to Environment Massachusetts, the Saugus River is the third most chemically polluted waterway in the state.
Eleanor Fort of EM and Becky Smith from Clean Action Water delivered that news while standing on the bank behind Ken's Car Care on Route 107 with the Saugus River stretched out behind them and General Electric looming across the water.
Fort said GE alone is responsible for dumping 1,000 pounds of toxic chemical waste into the Saugus River in 2007.
Pat Zerbe, manager of communication relations for GE Aviation, said GE is not acting illegally.
"The site in Lynn is in compliance with the water discharge permit that has been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for many years," she said.
Zerbe said the plant does work to protect the environment as well as ensuring the health and well being of its employees and neighbors. But Fort is not arguing that GE is out of compliance. She said she simply would like to see industry do better.
In total, industrial facilities across the commonwealth dumped 12,727 pounds of toxic chemicals into the state's waterways in 2007, which is the most recent data available. Smith said the dumping goes directly against the goals of the Clean Water Act, passed by the federal government in 1972 the Federal Government and aimed at ensuring all of the country's waterways were to be clean enough for swimming or fishing by 1985. That, Fort said, clearly has not happened.
"Polluters continue to use our waterways as dumping grounds for their toxic chemicals," she said. "With facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that nearly half of our waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing, but we should be outraged."
Fort pointed out that Saugus' point of discharge sits next to Rumney Marsh, which has already been designated as an "Area of Critical Environmental Concern."
Among the toxic chemicals discharged, Fort said there is lead, mercury and dioxin, which contaminate drinking water and are absorbed by the fish that people eventually eat.
"There are common-sense steps that should be taken to turn the tide against the toxic pollution of our lakes, rivers and streams," Smith added.
Fort said EM has three basic goals it hopes to achieve to thwart the dumping of toxic chemicals into the waterways. First is forcing industries to switch from using hazardous chemicals to using safer alternatives. She said companies as large as 3M and as small as the neighborhood dry cleaner have found ways to use safer alternative chemicals.
Second, Fort said the Environmental Protection Agency should issue permits with more stringent limits for each type of toxic pollution discharged and enforce the limits with credible penalties, not simply warning letters.
Lastly, Fort said the federal government should adopt policies to clarify that the Clean Water Act applies to all waterways, not just the major ones or waterways ruled out by various court actions.
"We need clean water now," Fort said. "And we need our government to act."
Smith said the key piece of legislation coming up on the federal level is the reintroduction of the Clean Water Act, which she added Congressman John Tierney supports.
Fort acknowledged the EPA never fined GE for dropping the 1,000 pounds of chemicals into the river, but said that doesn't make it right.
"We say 1,000 pounds is too much," she said. "If the original intention of the Clean Water Act was to clean up all waterways then we need to make good on that promise."
Advocates accuse GE of polluting waterway
written by Chris Stevens
Thursday October 22, 2009
SAUGUS - According to Environment Massachusetts, the Saugus River is the third most chemically polluted waterway in the state.
Eleanor Fort of EM and Becky Smith from Clean Action Water delivered that news while standing on the bank behind Ken's Car Care on Route 107 with the Saugus River stretched out behind them and General Electric looming across the water.
Fort said GE alone is responsible for dumping 1,000 pounds of toxic chemical waste into the Saugus River in 2007.
Pat Zerbe, manager of communication relations for GE Aviation, said GE is not acting illegally.
"The site in Lynn is in compliance with the water discharge permit that has been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for many years," she said.
Zerbe said the plant does work to protect the environment as well as ensuring the health and well being of its employees and neighbors. But Fort is not arguing that GE is out of compliance. She said she simply would like to see industry do better.
In total, industrial facilities across the commonwealth dumped 12,727 pounds of toxic chemicals into the state's waterways in 2007, which is the most recent data available. Smith said the dumping goes directly against the goals of the Clean Water Act, passed by the federal government in 1972 the Federal Government and aimed at ensuring all of the country's waterways were to be clean enough for swimming or fishing by 1985. That, Fort said, clearly has not happened.
"Polluters continue to use our waterways as dumping grounds for their toxic chemicals," she said. "With facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that nearly half of our waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing, but we should be outraged."
Fort pointed out that Saugus' point of discharge sits next to Rumney Marsh, which has already been designated as an "Area of Critical Environmental Concern."
Among the toxic chemicals discharged, Fort said there is lead, mercury and dioxin, which contaminate drinking water and are absorbed by the fish that people eventually eat.
"There are common-sense steps that should be taken to turn the tide against the toxic pollution of our lakes, rivers and streams," Smith added.
Fort said EM has three basic goals it hopes to achieve to thwart the dumping of toxic chemicals into the waterways. First is forcing industries to switch from using hazardous chemicals to using safer alternatives. She said companies as large as 3M and as small as the neighborhood dry cleaner have found ways to use safer alternative chemicals.
Second, Fort said the Environmental Protection Agency should issue permits with more stringent limits for each type of toxic pollution discharged and enforce the limits with credible penalties, not simply warning letters.
Lastly, Fort said the federal government should adopt policies to clarify that the Clean Water Act applies to all waterways, not just the major ones or waterways ruled out by various court actions.
"We need clean water now," Fort said. "And we need our government to act."
Smith said the key piece of legislation coming up on the federal level is the reintroduction of the Clean Water Act, which she added Congressman John Tierney supports.
Fort acknowledged the EPA never fined GE for dropping the 1,000 pounds of chemicals into the river, but said that doesn't make it right.
"We say 1,000 pounds is too much," she said. "If the original intention of the Clean Water Act was to clean up all waterways then we need to make good on that promise."
No comments:
Post a Comment