NJ Spotlight Doubles Down On Misleading Readers About DEP and “Dirty Dirt”

Another Example of “Regulatory Relief”  Chickens Coming Home To Roost

… the record reflects that much of the focus during legislative hearings in the spring of 1985 was on the need for various incentives, including tax breaks and regulatory relief, to encourage private investment in the diversion and recovery of recyclable materials from the conventional solid waste stream. (State Commission Of Investigation Report, (March, 2017, @ p. 5)

NJ Spotlight finally reported today on last week’s Senate Environment hearing on “Dirty Dirt”.

Today’s Spotlight coverage seeks to shift the focus away from DEP, environmental regulation, and the recent “dirty dirt” disputes in Vernon and Cumberland County, in favor of what they describe as a long dispute about closing loopholes in and applying NJ’s “A901” integrity review program conducted by the Attorney General’s Office to the recycling industry:

An eight-year struggle to close loopholes to keep bad actors out of the recycling sector is moving closer to winning legislative approval.

The legislation (S-1683), spurred by a 2011 report by the State Commission of Investigation into illegal dumping of toxic-tainted soil and debris, cleared the Senate Environment and Energy Committee last week.

Note that Spotlight cites the SCI 2011 Report, not the more recent SCI 2017 Report. That is no accident, it is part of Spotlight’s diversion.

As I wrote about that Senate hearing, there are significant and longstanding failures in DEP regulatory oversight of “dirty dirt”, a reality that NJ Spotlight and the Senate legislation completely ignore.

Worse, NJ Spotlight is not only ignoring DEP and the failure to enforce environmental regulations, thereby letting DEP off the hook. Spotlight is actively misinforming and misleading readers about the issue.

Specifically, NJ Spotlight falsely reported that DEP has no regulatory authority in overseeing not only transportation, beneficial re-use, and recycling of dirty dirt, but in the actual disposal of dirty dirty.

NJ Spotlight misreported this in the recent controversy in Cumberland County.

In a January 28, 2019 story, NJ Spotlight, uncritically citing the NJ DEP press office, reported:

Hazardous waste is defined by the federal government as that which presents an imminent danger because of qualities such as explosiveness or corrosiveness, said Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the DEP, which is not required to issue permits for the dumping of contaminated soil.

As I wrote to correct this error – DEP does issue permits “for the dumping of contaminated soil”:

[DEP’s] Hajna is just flat out wrong. While the federal EPA does define “hazardous waste” pursuant to Subtitle C of the federal Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA) – and “solid waste” pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA – NJ’s Solid Waste Manage Act State law and NJ DEP regulations define and regulate “hazardous waste” and “solid waste” far more broadly and strictly than federal RCRA. Hajna also is wrong in his “imminent danger” claim as the basis for EPA federal regulation.

Even after the Navy deal was nixed, DEP doubled down on this false position:

“Brendon Shank, communications director for the DEP, on Tuesday said no state permit is required to ship the soil.”

In fact, while no “DEP permit” is required, DEP does regulate dirty dirt haulers and the DEP does regulate the Cumberland County landfill. DEP issued a solid waste facility permit for its operation, including the types of waste it is allowed to accept. DEP has authority to determine compliance with the landfill permit, and to sample incoming loads to assure compliance and prevent illegal disposal of wastes not authorized by the permit. DEP also regulates all waste haulers that transport and dispose of wastes at NJ solid waste facilities and can sample loads to assure that they are hauling solid waste and not illegal hazardous waste. Read the applicable DEP regulations, which include this:

7:26-2.10 General engineering design submission requirements

[…]

vii. A waste inspection plan, which shall include a program for detecting and preventing the disposal of all unauthorized waste types, including regulated hazardous wastes. This program shall include, at a minimum, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Random inspections of incoming loads unless the owner or operator takes other steps to ensure that incoming loads do not contain unauthorized waste types, including regulated hazardous waste or TSCA waste;

I provided this correct information and links to the Department regulations and SCI 2017 Report to Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle, who has yet to correct his error.

In addition to failure to correct this error, Spotlight’s failure to report on lax DEP regulatory enforcement is despite the fact that the SCI Report (2017) NJ Spotlight reports on explicitly attributes a major cause of the problem to lax DEP environmental regulation. The SCI found: