WolfeNotes.com

Agenda Excludes Pre-Storm Planning & Preparedness, Global Warming, Adaptation, Coastal Management, & Land Use Rebuilding Issues

[Update 12/8/12 – WNYC covered this hearing – Critics: Christie Deep-Sixed Climate Change Prep

But it seems that DEP Commissioner Martin thinks he did “a heckof a job”!

New Jersey was well prepared for Sandy,  said Martin, the DEP chief. “While unfortunately some lives were lost, by and large we protected the state, we protected thousands of lives and lots of homes and lots of property overall and again we’ve done a great job with that and the Governor provided great leadership overall.”

We obviously strongly disagree:

In his first year, Christie closed the Office of Climate Change and Energy which had been created and given top-level priority under Jon Corzine.

It was run by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Its mission was to ready the state  to handle more severe storms, heat and rising sea levels.

“So none of this work is getting done,” said Bill Wolfe, a 30-year-veteran of DEP and now a harsh critic.

“And if you want to get something done, the DEP has all the tools to get something done and they’ve chosen not to use those tools for political reasons, reflecting the Governor’s priorities and Governor’s policy,” Wolfe said. “And they just don’t want to own up to that.”

Robert Martin, Commissioner for the Department of Environmental Protection, defended the Christie Administration’s efforts. The DEP hasn’t been weakened, he said, it’s been streamlined to cut red tape and wasteful spending.

[Note – there is a slight lack of clarity in this story in terms of the DEP programs and organization. As we’ve written, Commissioner Bob Martin killed the Commissioner’s Office of Climate Change and Office of Policy and Planning; disbanded the Corzine “Climate Change Summit” adaptation work; and outsourced adaptation planning – in addition failing to update flood maps and ignoring a host of warnings, studies, and pilot project recommendations.] – end update.

The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee holds its second in a series of oversight hearings on Supersorm Sandy today at the Meadowlands Ractrack at 11:30 am.

Let’s hope it is more substantive than the first one last week.

DEP Commissioner Martin is scheduled to testify on “DEP’s response to post-storm issues related to management of debris removal, wastewater, drinking water”.

Regardless of this narrow agenda, which excludes the most important issues, we’ve been looking into these issues and suggest – if the Senate is serious in its investigation –  the following questions Martin should be asked to answer

I)  Storm Planning, Preparedness & Adaptation

For what DEP knew, when they knew it, and what they could have done but failed to do to reduce risks, see these posts for info:

Leadership Matters – How DEP Buried Report on Coastal Storm Risks

Storm of Denial – Why Is Christie DEP Still in Denial and Lying About State Role in Coastal Hazards?

Monmouth Water Emergency Illustrates Climate Change Risks and Reveals Deficits in NJ’s Adaptation Planning

II) Public Involvement and transparency

Why is DEP holding private, closed door meetings on shore rebuilding? See:  DEP Holds Private Shore Rebuilding Meetings – By Invitation Only

III)  Rebuilding – Regional Planning, Infrastructure, and regulatory oversight

What is DEP’s role in rebuilding?

Why was rebuilding deregulated by Commsisioner Martin’s Order (for public infrastructure) which was later (on 11/19) radically expanded to private development by the Division of Land Use Management interpretation.

What is the State Planning Commission’s role?

What is the  role of the Governor and the “Redevelopment Czar?

Would DEP support additional designations under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act?

See this for additional perspectives: Whether to Rebuild The Jersey Shore Is Now on the Table

IV) Reforms to Coastal Zone Management

see this: The Deafness Before the Storm

Christie Outsources Climate Change Adaptation Planning

Will changes in the “sewer rules” which added thousands of acres of land to new sewer service areas – invite more development and infrastructure into vulnerable areas, both coastal and inland?

V)  Drinking Water

The Governor was forced to issue a water conservation emergency declaration and DEP isued at least a dozen boil water advisories because drinking water plants and intake pumps were knocked out by power failures and storm surge.

NJ’s water supply is highly vulnerable, give the locations of water supply intakes on inland rivers – as well as wells in the coastal zone, which are vulnerable to salt water intrusion.

And unknown number of water systems in the coast plain that rely on groundwater were impacted by salt water intrusion.

Under the NJ Water Supply management Act and DEP regulations, DEP is responsible for water supply infrastructure planning and emergency planning.

DEP has failed to update the Water Supply Master Plan – where’s the Plan?

What has DEP done to implement this regulatory requirement – where’s the Plan?:

7:10-2.3 Plan for the provision of potable water in emergencies

The Department shall prepare and maintain, within the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, a plan for the provision of safe drinking water under emergency circumstances. The Department shall review and update such plan as necessary.

VI) Wastewater Treatment

See:  Ten Days After Sandy, Millions of Gallons of Raw Sewage Continue To Flow Into NJ Rivers From Knocked Out Sewage Treatment Plants

DEP NJPDES permit regulations require sewage treatment plants to prepare a vulnerability assessment and emergency plan – but the regualtions have major loopholes and DEP does not enforce the requirement or review these plans.

Why?

What is DEP doing to close these loopholes?

Here are the requirements -What did Passaic Valley and Middlesex Plans say?

7:14A-6.12 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.

 […]

3. The emergency plan shall be designed to ensure effective operation of the treatment works under emergency conditions, and shall consist, at a minimum, of the following elements:

Bi. i. A vulnerability analysis which shall estimate the degree to which the treatment works would be adversely affected by each type of emergency situation which could reasonably be expected to occur, including but not limited to those emergencies caused by natural disaster, civil disorder, strike, sabotage, faulty maintenance, negligent operation or accident; …

ii. The vulnerability analysis shall include, but is not limited to, an estimate of the effects of such an emergency upon the following:

(1) Power supply;
(2) Communication;
(3) Equipment;
(4) Supplies;
(5) Personnel;
(6) Security; and
(7) Emergency procedures to be followed.

B. iii. An evaluation of the possible adverse effects on public health and the environment due to such an emergency; and

iv. An emergency operation plan for ensuring, to the maximum extent possible, uninterrupted treatment works operation and a manual of procedures for the implementation of such plan, including procedures for the notification of any appropriate regulatory agency, affected water supply purveyors, and any other municipal authority or agency. The plan and manual shall address each of the emergency situations described in the vulnerability analysis.

4. The Department shall not individually review and approve an emergency plan as part of the permit issuance process. The Department’s decision not to review and approve an emergency plan shall not exempt a person from liability for violations arising from an emergency situation. A person shall take all necessary actions to mitigate the damage to the waters of the State arising from an emergency situation. Such actions shall not be limited by the emergency operating plan and the operation and maintenance manual.

VII) Impacts on Toxic Sites

Were any toxic sites imapcted by flood waters or storm surge?

Why is DEP not providing information to the public?

VIII) Climate Change

What is DEP doing to redouble efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewables, and mandate adaptation planning?

Lets see if any of these tough questions get asked.

“Workarounds for the wealthy” Not The Answer to A Declining Public Sphere 

It’s been my unfortunate experience to observe that readily available public policy solutions to problems in our public sphere and responses to our environmental woes are almost always attacked based on allegedly huge costs. Claims of bureaucratic red tape and government inefficiency are a close second.

Whether the issue is conversion to wind and solar renewable energy sources to avert climate disaster;  or installation of pollution controls to prevent disease and ecological collapse; local or organic food production; or preservation of the last remaining forests and sensitive landscapes, the drumbeat of opponents is always based on costs, particularly costs that would hit homeowners via the property tax.   

So, needless to say, I am baffled by the gross contradiction of those same opponents to public solutions, as they pursue tremendously costly and inefficient individual private responses.

The same people who oppose a 5 CENT PER MONTH increase in their electric bills (that’s what RGGI would have cost the average homeowner, until Gov. Christie killed it as just “another tax” that put NJ business at a competitive disadvantage) and attack wind and solar as too expensive have no problem with spending $40,000 – $80,000 on a back up generator.

Gated communities and private security have long been the symbol of the wealthy’s private divorce from public life.

But that mentality is now creeping into many other areas of public life –

A few years back, I recall being outraged after reading about the existence of private fire companies.

This is a true story: I can’t recall where it was (southern California wildfires?), but I watched a video of a fire company respond to the scene and put out a wildfire to protect a client’s home. But they stood there and watched it burn down a neighbor’s house.

Not only is that morally abominable, but it is far less efficient to provide police and fire service on an individual contract basis – it’s called “public goods” and the technical efficiency is a result of economies of scale.

How bad can it get, I thought.

But, the mind boggles to read of the recent “market response” to “opportunities” to “meet consumer demand”-  Check out “Helpjet”, via Naomi Klein:

In the past six years, we have seen the emergence of private firefighters in the United States, hired by insurance companies to offer a “concierge” service to their wealthier clients, as well as the short-lived “HelpJet”—a charter airline in Florida that offered five-star evacuation services from hurricane zones. “No standing in lines, no hassle with crowds, just a first class experience that turns a problem into a vacation.” And, post-Sandy, upscale real estate agents are predicting that back-up power generators will be the new status symbol with the penthouse and mansion set.  

So, with that in mind, lets take a look at a story in today’s Bergen Record, which purports to give homeowners advice on how to protect their homes from storm. Oh, they sprinkle in a few “low cost” options, but the thrust of the story is warped, detached, and just plain disgraceful in its premise (see: You can’t beat Mother Nature but homeowners do have options

The thrust of the Record story is what NY Times columnist Nick Kristoff recently dubbed “workarounds for the wealthy”.

In upper-middle-class suburbs on the East Coast, the newest must-have isn’t a $7,500 Sub-Zero refrigerator. It’s a standby generator that automatically flips on backup power to an entire house when the electrical grid goes out. […]

More broadly, the lust for generators is a reflection of our antiquated electrical grid and failure to address climate change. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our grid, prone to bottlenecks and blackouts, a grade of D+ in 2009.

So Generac, a Wisconsin company that dominates the generator market, says it is running three shifts to meet surging demand. About 3 percent of stand-alone homes worth more than $100,000 in the country now have standby generators installed. …

That’s how things often work in America. Half-a-century of tax cuts focused on the wealthiest Americans leave us with third-rate public services, leading the wealthy to develop inefficient private workarounds.

It’s manifestly silly (and highly polluting) for every fine home to have a generator. It would make more sense to invest those resources in the electrical grid so that it wouldn’t fail in the first place.

But our political system is dysfunctional: in addressing income inequality, in confronting climate change and in maintaining national infrastructure.

The Record story talks about $40,000 – $80-,000 generators, but also sump pumps. We learn that the “gold standard” is a sump pump that

It’s a pump that runs off the domestic water that comes into the house,” said Medaglia. “For every gallon you use, you pump out two gallons of water.”

Medaglia estimates that a typical sump pump can dump 1,400 to 1,600 gallons of water an hour, and costs $400 to $600. A water-powered sump pump can remove about 1,000 gallons of water an hour and costs about $1,000 to $1,400.

Lets do a little math: 1,600 gallons an hour is 38,400 gallons per day per home. At one gallon per 2 pumped, that amounts to 12,800 gallons of drinking water

Think about thousands of homes doing that. Where is all that water going to go? If the sump pump discharges to the street, it will cause local flooding. If it discharges to a storm sewer, it will worsen flooding somewhere else.

But more importantly, where is all that water going to come from? Did the Record reporter consider the fact that during Sandy,  Gov. Christie was forced to declare a “state of water emeregency” and issue a mandatory water conservation emergency Order? If people were prohibited from using excess water to bath and clean indoors, how is that 12,800 gallons to operate the sump pump going to work out?

Since they have time and space to assign reporters to write detailed stories about these private individual “solutions”, do you think Record editors might want to cover how government responses can reduce risks?

Things like how good land use planning and zoning, infrastructure, and stricter environmental regulations might make things better for all of us, not just those who can afford a “gold standard” sump pump or a $40,000 generator?

But, getting back to broader issues, Kristoff gets to the root of a much broader problem.

So time and again, we see the decline of public services accompanied by the rise of private workarounds for the wealthy.

Is crime a problem? Well, rather than pay for better policing, move to a gated community with private security guards!

Are public schools failing? Well, superb private schools have spaces for a mere $40,000 per child per year.

Public libraries closing branches and cutting hours? Well, buy your own books and magazines!

Are public parks — even our awesome national parks, dubbed “America’s best idea” and the quintessential “public good” — suffering from budget cuts? Don’t whine. Just buy a weekend home in the country!

Public playgrounds and tennis courts decrepit? Never mind — just join a private tennis club!

We must reinvigorate the notion of the public interest, the public sphere, public space, public media, and collective public goods, like clean air, water, infrastructure, and a stable climate.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized community – the wealthy are sociopathic in their greed, individualism (I got mine jack), and lack of compassion for the public good.

Sunday sermon over now – you can get right back to shopping!

 NJ’s Once Progressive Toxic Use Reduction Policy Is Gone in Age of Christie

[Update: 12/2/12 – News update:

• This Courier-Post story gets the science and focus right: Expert: ‘This is really bad stuff’ – Toxicologists say vinyl chloride a carcinogen

• This Wall Street Journal article correctly notes the success of OSHA regulation to reduce (but not eliminate) occupational exposures, but overstates the “vanishingly low” long run cancer risks, which are scientifically unknown as a result of no threshold to carcinogens:  Isolated Exposure to Vinyl Chloride Gas Unlikely to Have Long-Term Impact

• This Philly Inquirer story focuses on the cleanup, but muddies the science with an assertion about levels meeting “acceptable limits for prolonged exposure to the chemical”. Whose levels? What health endpoints were the basis of these levels?

• The story out of Philly should be “How We Dodged a Bullet – Thousands would have died if this were a chlorine tanker rupture” – 

• It seems that, aside from the press office, that DEP is playing a small role. My sense is that DEP is staying under the radar due to Martin “hands off” policy of delegating to county and local government, lack of resources, and intentional effort to do absolutely nothing on toxic chemicals on the scientific or regulatory front. That’s a real shame, because in the 1970’s and 80’s, DEP made its reputation as an organization and held a national leadership posture in emergency response, toxicology, and regulation of chemicals. – end update 

I want to make a few points in a quick followup on yesterday morning’s Toxic Train Wreck in Paulsboro, NJ. (note that I quickly corrected that initial post because I was working off the first press report only, and I mis-stated the seriousness and severity of the problem. I don’t want to be accused of downplaying the problem, that’s DEP’s MO!).

I fear the context and the implications are being lost in the flurry of reactive news coverage.

First of all, the story is being reported almost exclusively as a train wreck due to a bridge collapse – these are real issues, but the larger problem is not railroad safety or bridge maintenance. Second, the scope of the responses to the problem is similarly limited to federal rail safety.

Industrial activities require a complex and dangerous infrastructure of extraction, transportation, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal. Any activity should be looked at in terms of its full lifecycle.

For example, if a train (or truck) loaded with fracking wastewater derailed or crashed in Pennsylvania, would environmentalists and the media be talking about rail and truck safety?

Of course not – it would be a story about the larger context: the dangers of fracking and the need to ban and more strictly regulate it.

Environmentalists correctly argue that fracking imposes inherent risks, including things like truck and rail accidents that are statistically certain to happen.

In response to such a similar accident, if a Pennsylvania Senator issued a press release that focused on rail safety as priority one, environmentalists would correctly blast him for covering up for the State’s home fracking industry.

So, the media, environmentalists, and Senator Lautenberg all are missing the story – the real story are the huge risks of chemical manufacturing, increasingly lax oversight, and increasingly severe adverse public health, environmental, worker, and safety risks.

So let me repeat:  As I wrote:

NJ industries use over 15 BILLION pounds of hazardous chemicals per year. That number has grown slightly from 1990 – 1998 (most recent data reported by DEP Pollution Prevention – see Figure 4). That’s almost 2,000 pounds for each resident.

Hundreds of NJ Communities are threatened by scores of dangerous chemical facilities, where an accident or terror attack could kill more than 100,000 residents.

In comparison, press reports indicate that the railcars involved in the crash released approximately  120,000 pounds of the highly toxic and carcinogenic gas, vinyl chloride (VC).

Those train cars are not just wandering around and the risks from the cargo they carry is not just related to transportation.

Those trains go to chemical plants, where workers, communities, and the environment are exposed to and impacted by DEP permitted and unregulated fugitive emissions – as well as put at immediate risk of catastrophic accident – on a daily basis. I’m sure this is one reason why NJ has some of the highest cancer rates in the country.

To give you some idea of the magnitude of these risks, the most recent published DEP Right to Know annual data (2006) show that 79 NJ chemical plants across densely populated areas of the State used more than 458 MILLION pounds of vinyl chloride – 3,816 times more than that rail car carried.

VC is regulated by NJDEP in NJ under the “Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act” (TCPA) as a “extradordinarily hazardous substance” (EHS) These are substances that can kill you – immediately – as in death.  The NJ TCPA program was created in response to the chemical accident in Bhopal India, that killed thousands of people.

The threshold for regulation of VC is storage of at least 10,000 pounds – so, if that railcar were an industrial facility, it would be regulated by the DEP and required to do an “off site consequence analysis” of a “worst case scenario” catastrophic accident, submit a risk management plan, and implement measures to reduce risks.

Vinyl chloride also is a known human carcinogen (NJ RTK link, for some reason ATSDR not functioning) – one of the few chemicals that are absolutely proven to cause cancer.

Under the groundbreaking 1990 Pollution Prevention Act, it used to be the policy of the State of NJ and the DEP to promote and regulate facilities to achieve “toxic use reduction” – actually reduce the  production and use of the toxic chemicals.

Unfortunately, the chemical industry viewed the Act as an existential threat to their ability to keep on manufacturing unlimited amounts of deadly poisons.

So, that policy is no more, especially in the age of “job killing red tape” Gov. Christie, where DEP Commissioner Martin says DEP’s job is to “promote economic development” and treat the chemical industry as a “customer”.

But the fact remains: the product is the problem.

(and here are the industries and locations that are poisoning you with carcinogens)

 

Will Obama EPA rubber stamp NJ’s $37 billion request – no strings attached?

As the Sandy Scene shifts from emergency response and demolition to a rebuilding phase, and after Governor Christie has prepared NJ’s $37 billion federal bailout request and named a redevelopment Czar, we were wondering where the Obama EPA is.

We fear that EPA and the federal bailout package are the only things that can slow down the irresponsible Christie runaway train, which is  preparing to pour billions of dollars of federal taxpayer money into rebuilding in precisely the same dangerous shore locations that were devastated by Sandy.

We note that more than $3 billion of the bailout sought involves public infrastructure that is funded and regulated by US EPA under federal environmental laws – water, sewer and waste management facilities (and toxic site cleanups).

We’ve seen the implications of failed water infrastructure with billions of gallons of raw sewage discharged to NY Harbor and Raritan Bay by 2 regional sewage plants; a Governor’s emergency water conservation directive; at least a dozen community water systems under boil water advisories (and washout of toxic waste sites).

We note that DEP Commissioner Martin issued an Order that waived state environmental permit requirements for rebuilding that infrastructure, including federally delegated wetlands permits (stunningly, the Martin Order didn’t exclude or even mention compliance with federal requirements – as if EPA did not exist!).

[Note: Don’t feel ao bad EPA, Martin’s Order ignored NJ State law too, e.g. CAFRA exmpts rebuild from permit requirements, but at least it does recognize federal law – NJSA 13:19-5.2:

b. The reconstruction of any development that is damaged or destroyed, in whole or in part, by fire, storm, natural hazard or act of God, provided that such reconstruction is in compliance with existing requirements or codes of municipal, State and federal law; ]

We wrote EPA Region II Administrator Judith Enck on November 6 to request federal oversight of Martin’s waiver (see below), and almost a month later we have received no reply, despite followup requests.

We’ve heard nothing from USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who calls NJ home and should be leading the charge to assure that the shore redelopment plan is done in an environmentally sustainable way that complies with federal law.

The Obama administration included a number of progressive initiatives in the federal stimulus package, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,  including new policies and billions of dollars for renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean water, smart electric grid,  mass transit, rail, and public housing assistance.

 

Are they going to simply rubber stamp NJ’s $37 billion request with no strings attached?

 

Here is my prior letter to EPA RA Enck:

 

From: “bill wolfe” <bill_wolfe@comcast.net>
To: “Judith Enck” <Enck.Judith@epamail.epa.gov>
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:14:05 AM
Subject: EPA oversight – NJ DEP waives rules for rebuilding infrastructure

Appoints Corporate Crony As Czar to Oversee Redevelopment

No Lessons Learned – Business As Usual

Will The Legislature Allow Christie To Control The Whole Game?

(Is there a “Heck of a job Marc” in NJ’s future?)

The “debate” of whether and how to rebuild the shore is over before any real debate actually occured.

Let this be confirmation of the trite slogan: politics abhors a vacuum.

In the vacuum created by the absence of Legislative leadership and while the planning and environmental advocates were hiding under their desks (or worse: having secret meetings with their friends at DEP) and making no public demands on the Administration, Governor Christie just unilaterally acted.

According to the Bergen Record, in another vast executive over-reach, Christie has centralized control and appointed a corporate crony as Czar to oversee redevelopment:

Christie also announced the appointment of Marc Ferzan of Lawrenceville and the hiring of Witt Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based public safety and crisis management consulting firm, to work with him.

Ferzan will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating the state’s long-term recovery, while working with local governments and public and private partners, including Witt Associates.

“I’m naming Marc to this position because of the importance and urgency of the effort and my commitment to getting it done efficiently and effectively for the people of our state,” the governor said. […]

Ferzan said he planned to assemble a “core team” and would work with federal, state and local officials, charities, private industry, community organizations, volunteers and impacted community members to rebuild and develop mitigation strategies.

I have been writing here and working behind the scenes urging my colleagues to back a “strategic retreat” from the shore and to call for the formation of a Coastal Commission to oversee the public planning process.

As another “extreme weather” event,  Sandy illustrated the need to demand aggressive new climate change policies, including things like a phase out of in-state fossil power and imports; a moratorium on new pipeline and powerline construction; a carbon tax; accelerated wind and solar renewables; expansion of Clean Energy Funds; and massive public transportation and infrastructure investments.

None of that is likely to happen now –

(all of it was improbable, but it is certainly impossible without a demand, which is something that never emerged, despite numerous entreaties.

My guess is that this silence was no accident – now certain passive conservation groups can sit back and bask in the mitigation money likely to flow from the redevelopment boom.)

And I blame timid and visionless leaders of NJ ENGO’s (I’m willing to name names), a tabloid press corps, virtually no effort by the somnolent professional planning community, and a passive legislature.

The only question that remains is will Sweeney and Norcross sit back and take it?

(maybe Sweeney would get a burr under his saddle if US House Republicans proposed to eliminate prevailing wage and unions from the multi-billion $ federal bailout appropriation bill – something that is not beyond the pale, given the Katrina “Shock Doctrine” rollbacks and current “fiscal cliff” austerity politics. )