WolfeNotes.com

[Update 5/14/12: Watch Fox News coverage: “NJ community devastated by contaminated water”.

It is shocking that the spokesman for Dupont, one of the largest chemical companies in the world, can’t get his chemical names right “PEC and TEC”  and can’t seem to speak for a State Department of Health study that found elevated rates of certain cancers that are associated with the specific chemicals in the groundwater that Dupont put there! And it is not surprising that Dupont can’t commit to a date for cleanup of the Lake because the US Fish and Wildlife Service found serious flaws in Dupont’s ecological assessment of bio-accumulative mercury in sediments and EPA is unable to approve the Dupont cleanup plan (and that photo at time 4:10-4:12 came from this December 2011 Wolfenotes post! – end update.]

I got a call from my friends Lisa Riggiola and Ed Meakem asking to come up to Pompton Lakes to join residents doing interviews with Fox news. No fan of Fox news and highly skeptical of their angle, still, I wandered back to the scene of the crime yesterday (I’m told Fox will broadcast the story Sunday night at 10 pm on the Geraldo Rivera show. Something tells me that they will give me the “government lied” soundbite). The whole thing brought a song to mind – Paul Simon “Still Crazy  after all these years” (I like the Willie Nelson version – so listen and then read on!)

The Fox crew seemed legitimately concerned and interested in the story. Their reporter interviewed several residents at the Lake, in homes in the vapor plume, and at the Dupont facility. He seemed over-whelmed by the outpouring of numerous disasters and human tragedies that resulted from Dupont corporate greed and abuse and government indifference, incompetence, and timidity.

The Fox reporter asked that I go with him on the Dupont site tour, to help him with questions of the Dupont spokesman. I agreed to do that, but, repeating a pattern, when we arrived for the tour/interview, the Dupont rep. would not let me on the site! When Fox reporter asked why, the Dupont guy said  “we didn’t know Wolfe was coming”.

The Fox crew filmed along Barbara Drive and the (former) soccer field.

This brought back memories – The photo above is what “Dupont Field” looked like on July 9, 2008, when I wrote this in my Star Ledger NJ Voices column:

This soccer field is named Dupont Field. It is completely surrounded by groundwater monitoring wells and a “pump and treat” system. I was told that the highly polluted groundwater is pumped out of the ground, treated, and then recharged back into the ground ON the soccer field. So kids play on a hazardous wast treatment unit! Only in NJ! 

Kids unknowingly played on that “field” for years while Dupont, DEP and EPA looked the other way. But my criticism and disclosure forced Dupont to close the field, which now shamefully looks like this (below).  The only grass that was mowed was the narrow path to the groundwater monitoring wells – another insult to the residents of Pompton Lakes:

But an abandoned soccer field is the least of the problems Dupont created at Pompton Lakes. How would you like this view from the front porch of your home:

But while the view is bad, the toxic gases seeping into the homes is far worse for people who live in the 450 homes above “the plume”.  Take a look at the stack running up the side of the building. That’s a “vapor mitigation system”.

Residents were poisoned in their homes by Dupont pollution – something known as “vapor intrusion”. Dupont, DEP, and EPA knew about the vapor problem for over a decade but didn’t inform homeowners, who unknowingly were needlessly exposed to cancer causing chemical gases (hit this link for a chronology of who knew what when).

Outrageously, the residents were not told about the vapor intrusion problem until  after residents executed a legal settlement with Dupont that waived their ability to sue Dupont [read US District Court decision]. In the summer of 2008, just after the ink was dry on that litigation settlement agreement , DEP and EPA suddenly claimed to have discovered the vapor problem.

But, this is not the first time that DEP withheld scientific information from the public to shield Dupont – the same  thing happened during litigation on PFOA contamination of groundwater from Dupont’s Chambersworks facility in South Jersey. DEP did not release site remediation information until a lawsuit there was settled.

EPA also issued false certifications to Congress that groundwater and human health exposure at the site were “under control”.

These kinds of potential frauds and conspiracies warrant investigation.

After the Fox interview (and lunch with Lisa and Helen), I took a hike on the historic Cannonball Trail, which runs along the edge of the Dupont property. I couldn’t resist taking advantage of an opening in the fence to ramble the Dupont site.

I could not find the two “open burning areas”, where as late as the 1990’s, a DEP issued and EPA rubber stamped RCRA permit allowed Dupont to openly burn huge amounts of hazardous waste, with no air emission controls. This hazardous waste contained high concentrations of mercury, which volatilized when the waste was combusted. The resulting air emissions deposited locally, and poisoned soil, water, and fish and wildlife of the entire region with bio-accumulative mercury.  I could find no estimates of the total waste or mercury loading from these outrageous DEP approved “open burning” practices.

But I did manage to find the infamous “shooting pond”, technically known as a RCRA regulated hazardous waste surface impoundment.

For decades, Dupont detonated countless explosives in the pond, according to Dupont, more than 2.5 million per year. This contributed to severe toxic contamination with high levels of lead, mercury, selenium and a host of organic chemicals in surrounding impacted groundwater, soils, and surface water (the pond drains to a stream).

While this is ancient history, the tiny toxic shooting pond is actually a perfect microcosm of the Dupont disaster.

So let me give you just two examples of egregious falsehoods represented by Dupont – and regulatory failures by DEP  and EPA.

Way back in 1987, DEP proposed to terminate a NJPDES groundwater pollution permit for the shooting pond. This finally would have stopped this outrageously polluting practice. But Dupont strenuously opposed that DEP action. Of course, they invoked the Big Lie about killing Jobs.

According to a July 17, 1987 letter from Mr. Bernard J. Reilly, Dupont’s “Senior Counsel” opposing DEP’s draft permit termination:

Impact on Employment of a Shutdown of the Shooting Pond

If the DEP does not stay the final denial… the remaining permitted storage space will be consumed by approximately the end of November 1987. With no storage capacity and no alternative for destruction, the plant would be required to stop production and layoff in excess of 250 employees (emphasis mine).

Dupont did not just threaten plant closure. The also lied about the environmental conditions at the shooting pond:

“As NJDEP is aware, the stream flowing through the Shooting Pond area is intermittent. Despite the fact that the stream flow stops during dry weather, we have never observed evidence of migration of water from the pond to the stream” (emphasis mine)

I was there today, and I observed and photographed “evidence of migration of water from the pond to the stream“. The shooting pond was discharging a significant water flow to the stream. The stream did not appear to be intermittent. I understand that we are more than 4 inches below average rainfall for this time of year. Take a look:

Amazingly, DEP caved in to this blackmail and lying and agreed to Dupont’s request to stay the permit denial. The shooting pond continued to operate and pollute for over 2 more years, a deadline imposed by Congress in 1984 legislation known as HSWA.

How many more Dupont lies and threats – and DEP and EPA regulatory collapses – were there over the last 25 years?

Below are some additional photos of interesting stuff at the site. I was particularly bothered by the “hazardous road warning” – a warning Dupont provided to their employees but that residents never got.

The signs instructing employees on what valves to turn also do not inspire confidence – this is how an EXPLOSIVES PLANT was run?

And what the heck are these? Readers who know, please tell us! 

“Dupont Field of Schemes” – Multi- Billion Dollar Corporation Can’t Cut the Grass

 

The Christie Administration’s proposed FY’ 13 DEP Budget is up before the Assembly Budget Committee on Monday  May 7 at 10 am.

Here is contact info for members of that Committee – be sure to send them cards and letters about your budget concerns (see below for helpful information).

I worked on several budget issues recently and will be posting my own analysis and concerns, but, until then, I thought I’d post the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) questions to DEP and the DEP replies.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a link so must post the entire document. The OLS Question is followed by the DEP reply (and still not yet posted on OLS website) :

1. In the FY 2012 Budget, $6.7 million was appropriated to the DEP to pay for the costs of replanting trees and impacts of the deforestation on municipalities from the New Jersey Turnpike roadway widening project from Interchange 6 to Interchange 9.

• Question: How much of this money was actually received by the municipalities?  Please provide a breakdown of the amounts paid to each municipality. 

Answer:  During FY 2011, $4.87 million was paid by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority directly to the six municipalities.  Currently the DEP is developing grant agreements that will encumber the FY 2012 funding of $6.7 million from the Global Warming Solutions Fund to the six municipalities.  The chart below provides the specific allocation to each municipality. 

• Question: In addition, what are the total compensatory amounts each municipality is scheduled to receive, by fiscal year, under its Stipulation of Settlement? 

Answer: The detail of each municipality’s compensation is listed below

2. On May 26, 2011, the Governor announced that New Jersey will become the first state to withdraw by the end of 2011 from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a 10-state consortium that utilizes a regional carbon cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.

• Question: How will this decision impact efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) emissions, the DEP’s budget and the funding of clean energy projects by the State?

Answer: New Jersey’s withdrawal from RGGI will not impact efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and will not impact funding of clean energy projects by the State.

RGGI is not effective in reducing GHG emissions and is unlikely to be in the future. 

First, RGGI allowances never worked to change behavior. They did not spur energy producers to choose lower carbon fuels or more efficient production technologies. When RGGI began, the industry projected that the cost of allowances would eventually be as high as $20-30 per ton of emissions, compared with the average 2011 price of less than $2 per ton. The system failed to work as its designers intended it to work.

Second, New Jersey’s carbon emissions are already below the limits for 2020 established in New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act (GWRA), the legislation that permitted participation in RGGI. According to GHG inventory data from 2008, before RGGI was implemented, GHG emissions are down in New Jersey due to increased use of natural gas and decreased use of coal. The market, not RGGI, has created incentives to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels. Preliminary data analysis shows that New Jersey will continue to maintain the 2020 limit through 2020 without participation in RGGI. In addition, DEP will no longer incur the costs associated with administration of the RGGI program.

Third, New Jersey now has laws that provide significant market incentives for power generation from wind, solar, and natural gas, so any benefits that the RGGI tax may have had are miniscule. In fact, since the GWRA was passed, 14 new laws have been passed that all accomplish the goals of promoting clean energy without participation in RGGI. RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions.

The State receives adequate funding from the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC), which funds programs for renewable energy, energy efficiency and ratepayer assistance.  As the Governor stated in his veto message for a bill that would have required the State’s participation in RGGI, “RGGI does nothing more than impose a tax on electricity. Moreover, it creates an unlevel playing field for our resident businesses that must compete from the fourth highest energy cost state in the country.”  Elimination of this duplicative charging program is one step that needed to be taken in controlling energy costs for New Jersey ratepayers.    

3. One of the five goals of the DEP listed in the proposed FY 2013 Budget Overview on page D-101 is “Restoration and Enhanced Protection in Environmentally Overburdened Communities.”  As explained, this involves the development of a new paradigm for the protection of communities overburdened by environmental stresses.

• Question: What criteria are used to define and select the overburdened communities to be restored/protected?  Please list each specific community thus far identified, any resources expended in that community, the source of those expenditures, and the work performed or funded.  What source and amount of funding will be used in FY 2013 to achieve this goal?  Please specify how this goal will be accomplished and in what time frame.

Answer: As part of DEP’s Goal 3, the Department is developing a new paradigm for protection of environmentally overburdened communities by evaluating multiple source impacts on human health and the environment.  This new paradigm will eventually be incorporated into decision making processes in all programs. DEP will bypass the typical approach of considering only one media’s environmental impact or focusing on pollutants on a stack-by-stack, facility-by-facility or site-by-site basis.  Instead, DEP is developing the Cumulative Impacts Method: a way to integrate data to identify the cumulative environmental impacts from multiple sources on a community, estimate the burden, and compare the impacts on different geographic areas. Since science is not yet able to identify cumulative risks from multimedia impacts, this is not a risk assessment tool, but rather a data screening tool that DEP will use to help identify overburdened communities and the environmental impacts on those communities.

4. A new Parks Management Grants-in-Aid appropriation for “Public Facility Programming” is recommended in the amount of $2.125 million in the proposed budget.

• Question: Please explain the purpose and justification for this appropriation.  Where and when funds will be spent, and by what process will grantees be selected?  Which public facilities will be affected, and what will be accomplished?

Answer: The FY 2013 budget as proposed by Governor Christie includes a $2.125 million Grants-in-Aid program to support State-owned or federal facilities of statewide or national significance that have been operating with the help of non-profit organizations. The intent of this Grants-in-Aid funding is to allow DEP to partner with non-profit organizations to ensure that New Jersey’s treasures are not abandoned if short-term assistance can help a facility become self-sustaining.  Examples of eligible entities could include the Battleship New Jersey in Camden, Morven Museum and Garden in Princeton and the Old Barracks in Trenton.

In July the DEP will develop a grant application process outlining the specific requirements and defining what specific costs would be eligible for reimbursement.

5. According to program data in the proposed budget, the DEP has 2,741 filled positions for FY 2012 and projects a total of 2,782 filled positions in FY 2013, for a net gain of 41 positions.  22 of these new positions will be for administration and support services.

• Question: Why is the DEP increasing staff in this area?  What is the justification for these positions?  What are the titles and specific job responsibilities of this staffing increase?

Answer:  The Department is not increasing its staffing level. Overall the Department’s staffing level is dropping slightly when compared to its authorized FTE level in FY 2012.  The filled level of 2,741 reflects only those staff on the payroll at Pay Period #2, not the authorized hiring level. For example, employees on leave would not be included within the 2,741. 

The “increase” to the Department’s Administrative and Support Services area, which includes the Department’s Management and Administration, Communications and Legal Affairs, reflects the shifting of staffing resources through lateral mobility to address key Departmental priorities associated with transformation, including more efficiently serving the public through implementation of the permit coordination initiative, improving customer service, providing greater transparency through expanded communications with constituents, stakeholders and the media, and shifting of other key administrative staff to backfill vacancies in administrative areas in lieu of new hires.

6. Newly recommended budget language on page D-118 of the FY 2013 Budget would appropriate “such sums as are necessary,” subject to the approval of the State budget director, from remediation management and response appropriations supported by the Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund and the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, respectively, for “costs associated with the Administration and Support Services program.”  No legislative approval of these appropriations would be required under this language.  The OLS estimates that this language would authorize as much as $34 million in appropriations supported by those two funds to be shifted to the Administration and Support Services program.  This program, recommended for $16.3 million in original appropriations in FY 2013, comprises the Commissioner’s office, central administrative functions such as personnel, payroll, budget and accounting and information technology, and “sets policies and develops short- and long-range plans and strategies” for the department.  A staff complement of 244 is projected for FY 2013, up 22 from FY 2012.

• Question: Does the department concur with the OLS estimate of appropriations potentially allocated to the Administration and Support Services program under this language, and if not, what is the correct amount?  What amount does the department estimate will be allocated to the Administration and Support Services program under this language?  Is the language intended to fund only staff and other costs in the program that are exclusively devoted to remediation management and response duties?  If so, why is an open-ended authorization to reallocate funds recommended, rather than an authorization limited in amount and/or based on costs directly related to remediation management and response?  If not, what circumstances or considerations justify the Legislature authorizing such a potentially large expansion of resources for the program?

Answer:  The Department does not agree with the above estimate of appropriations allocated to the Administrative and Support Services program.  The total amount allocated to Administrative and Support Services in FY 2013 is $3,416,000, which includes $2,038,000 in salaries plus applicable fringe and indirect charges.  The language which is proposed is the result of the legislative direction in the FY 2012 Appropriations Act to utilize $767,000 from the Spill Fund to support the Department’s Administrative and Support Services and does not represent an expansion of the program..  The intent of the language is to cover unfunded Administrative and Support Services costs.

7. The southern pine beetle continues to cause extensive damage to the New Jersey Pinelands with a dramatic increase of infestations in Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Ocean Counties.  According to the DEP, approximately 70 percent of the outbreaks are taking place on private lands and the infestation is on pace to equal or surpass the estimated 14,000 acres of trees killed in 2010, the worst year on record since the southern pine beetle was first detected in the State.  In response, the DEP announced it is developing a plan to offer financial assistance to municipalities and landowners to address infestation on private lands.

• Question: Please describe the specific funding, budget, and staff resources that the DEP is utilizing to combat the spread and control of this insect.  Absent resource constraints, what would be the proper budget and staffing levels to sufficiently support this activity?

The specific funding that supports the Department’s Southern Pine Beetle Suppression program includes US Forest Service funding of $235,000 along with an anticipated Federal Grant of $426,000.

Currently the Department has assigned its forestry staff on a part-time basis to address the immediate needs.  This includes 12 FTEs in varying percentages (20% – 80%) along with dedicated hourly staff to remove diseased trees.  The cost of this effort has been approximately $300,000.

In concert with the efforts of the Pinelands Commission and local governments, DEP has adequate resources to address the problem.

• Question: What type and amount of financial assistance will be provided to municipalities and landowners?

DEP has established a financial assistance program that will allocate approximately $365,000.

Municipal/landowner assistance programs – total for 3 years

USFS Cost-share grants for home/landowners with >5 woodland acres $  90,000

USFS Cost-share grants for municipalities $175,000

USFS Cost-share firewise grants $100,000

        $365,000

8. During the month of August, New Jersey experienced extensive flooding and storm damage throughout the entire State caused by record rainfall amounts and Hurricane Irene.

• Question: Please explain and provide a breakdown of the cost and budgetary impact this event had upon DEP operations and with regard to cleanup and repairs to damaged facilities and to natural and other resources of the State (parks, forests, coast, beaches, marinas, historic sites, dams, watersheds, shellfish beds, etc.).

Answer: Three storms have impacted DEP in FY 2012:  Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee and the October snow storm.  Not only did these storms impact our operating facilities, but the Department provided specific response activities during the height of the flooding with staff from Park Police, Forest Fire, Dam Safety and Flood Control, Water Resources and Compliance and Enforcement.  Overall the Department’s claimed costs exceed $2.5 million, with $2.05 million associated with Hurricane Irene damage and response activities; $163,000 related to storm damages and response activities tied to Tropical Storm Lee and $325,000 in damages connected to the October Snow Storm.  

The detailed expenses by program are listed on Attachment I.

The greatest impact to our facilities (buildings, roads, and bridges) was seen on the D&R Canal, at Wharton State Forest and the Walt Whitman House from Hurricane Irene; at Stokes State Forest and northern New Jersey facilities from Tropical Storm Lee; and the range pens for the game bird hatchery at Rockport Game Farm in Hackettstown from the October snow storm.  The Department’s Site Remediation Program took the lead on the cleanup of contamination from damaged home heating oil tanks after major flooding affected 97 homes on Lake Hiawatha during Hurricane Irene.

• Question: To what extent were costs claimed and recovered from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?

Answer:  Of the $2.5 million total in claimed costs for all three events, approximately $1.86 million will be reimbursable from FEMA.  So far the Department has received $4,480 related to the operations of our Communications Center during the Hurricane Irene event.

9. On December 9, 2010 the Governor unveiled a comprehensive Barnegat Bay restoration plan, consisting of 10 key policy provisions, that includes projects to help improve, protect, and maintain the water quality of Barnegat Bay.

• Question: What are the estimated costs to implement these provisions and the total cost of the plan?  Please provide a breakdown of the specific funding sources and allocations that will be utilized to implement the key policy provisions.

Answer: The Governor’s 10-point plan for restoration of Barnegat Bay has been embraced by the Department of Environmental Protection as a top goal. Detailed information is available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/.  Addressing the issues which have led to a degradation of water quality requires multiple and complex tactics.  Different parts of the Bay experience different levels of impact.  A team of DEP staff have been working on various aspects. 

Following is the breakdown by each of the 10 policy provisions:

1. Close Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant – The State has negotiated and entered into an agreement with Exelon Corporation to cease electric generation operations at the Oyster Creek Generating Station by the end of 2019.  As part of this agreement, Exelon is required to remit an annual payment of $100,000 to conduct research and programs for the protection of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.  So far during FY 2012, $22,000 has been spent.  The balance will be spent in FY 2013.  

2. Fund Stormwater Runoff Mitigation Projects – The State has identified and prioritized funding for projects designed to address nutrient pollution of Barnegat Bay from stormwater runoff.  In FY 2012, 5 FTE worked on evaluation of projects totaling $17 million that were submitted to the Department.  In FY 2013, $11 million will be expended on 12 distinct projects in the watershed, ranging from retrofit of stormwater basins and using green infrastructure to replace pavement, to street cleaning equipment and a truckwash facility.  The Department has dedicated 2.5 FTE to shepherd these projects through the process and to evaluate additional projects as they become available.

3. Reduce Nutrient Pollution from Fertilizer – On January 5, 2011, Governor Chris Christie signed legislation that established the most restrictive standards in the nation for nitrogen content in fertilizer and application rates for use.  The new law establishes a new content standard for fertilizer that will reduce excess nutrient runoff into the Bay by decreasing the total amount of nitrogen in fertilizer and increasing the amount of slow-release nitrogen.  The law also creates a fertilizer application certification program for professional fertilizer applicators, administered by the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University in consultation with the DEP.  The DEP, in consultation with the Barnegat Bay Partnership, key environmental groups, and industry, will continue to provide public education for homeowners on the effects of fertilizer runoff into the Bay.  In FY 2012, the fertilizer certification program was established, and educational materials developed.  Approximately $150,000 was expended by Rutgers. 

4. Require Post-Construction Soil Restoration – On January 5, 2011, Governor Chris Christie signed into law a measure that requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, through the State Soil Conservation Committee, to propose modifications to the existing soil erosion and sediment control standards.  These standards are being developed. 

5. Acquire Land in the Watershed – Acquiring available, ecologically sensitive lands along Barnegat Bay and its tributaries is a cost-effective and critical measure to prevent development activities that could further degrade the Bay’s water and ecological quality.  More than 2,000 acres have been acquired to date through expenditures of approximately $3.2 million on State Projects and $1.8 million on local projects. The program is on track to preserve 3,000 acres by the end of FY 2013. Funding is through the existing Green Acres program. 

6. Establish a Special Area Management Plan – A Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) will be developed in collaboration with members of the Barnegat Bay Partnership and other planning authorities in the region.  Funding for the SAMP comes from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.  The SAMP will begin with a toolbox of best management practices, ordinances, and water quality improvement projects for mayors to voluntarily adopt and implement, but will customize these tools for specific area types, thus directing the limited municipal resources to activities that have high probability of effectiveness.

7. Adopt More Rigorous Water Quality Standards – After adopting narrative nutrient criteria for coastal waters on December 21, 2010, the DEP and its partners launched a new comprehensive ambient water quality monitoring network in the Barnegat Bay watershed on June 6, 2011.  In FY 2011, $1.7 million was expended on gauging stations and water quality measurements to assess the baseline water quality conditions in the Bay.  An understanding of the quantity of water flowing into and out of the Bay, as well as its circulation within the Bay, is critical to understanding the behavior of the Bay and the movement of pollutants within it. The Department has enlisted 10 partners, including local and county governments, State and Federal agencies, a science high school, a university and other organizations to assist the Department in sample collection and analysis. In FY 2012, $2.6 million was set aside to accomplish the many tasks involved with sampling 12 tributaries and 14 bay stations in a synoptic fashion.  For FY 2013, expenditures of $951,000 are expected.  Funding sources include the Corporate Business Tax, EPA grants under parts 106 and 319 of the Clean Water Act, United States Geological Survey matching funds, and volunteer efforts from the Barnegat Bay Partnership, Ocean County Utilities Authority, Ocean County Health Department, Monmouth University, Pinelands Commission, MATES school, Brick Township Municipal Utilities Authority, Environmental Protection Agency, and ReClam the Bay.  At DEP the staffing time dedicated to this project was 6 FTE in FY 2012 and will be 12 FTE in FY 2013. 

8. Educate and Engage the Public – The DEP is implementing a strategy that leverages the media, environmental advocates, and the Barnegat Bay community to educate and engage the public on the impacts of their actions.  Within the Department about 1.5 FTE is spent on various aspects of this strategy, including presentations, press releases, development of educational materials and displays, maintenance of the public information website (http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/), coordination of volunteers, and answering questions from the public. The highest profile example of these activities is the Barnegat Bay Blitz. On October 19, 2011, more than 2,400 volunteers (including DEP Commissioner Martin, other DEP officials and staff) picked up trash and debris in each of the Barnegat Bay watershed’s 37 municipalities. Volunteers came from a wide array of local groups including students, senior citizens, environmentalists, business and local government leaders, and even military personnel from Fort Dix. The 2011 blitz was a major success: volunteers gathered 739 bags of trash and 578 bags of recyclables, plus three 30-yard dumpsters and three dump trucks.  Donations of materials (garbage bags, gloves, dumpsters, etc.) and disposal fees totaled approximately $20,000.  An even bigger Barnegat Bay Blitz is planned for May 9, 2012, with additional sponsors, volunteers, and local involvement.  

9. Fill in the Gaps on Research – The DEP Office of Science has been working with the Science Advisory Board, state universities, the U.S. Geological Survey, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Barnegat Bay Partnership to develop and fund additional research projects that will fill in the data gaps, help address how we improve water quality and advance habitat restoration on the Bay, and establish baseline conditions of the Bay. For FY 2012, $1.2 million was expended in contracts to research institutions, and for FY 2013, another $1.4 million is planned to continue the research projects.  Funding sources include Corporate Business Tax, Spill Fund, a Performance Partnership Grant from EPA (multi-media) and the Safe Drinking Water Fund.  

10. Reduce Water Craft Impacts – Boats and personal watercraft can harm the Bay by damaging submerged aquatic vegetation and disrupting aquatic habitats.  Education, enforcement and research are necessary to comprehensively address the problem. For FY 2012 and FY 2013, an enforcement and education initiative is envisioned which will provide education initially, then warnings and citations eventually, to boaters who do not observe safe and environmentally friendly requirements about distance from shore, speed, or careless or reckless operation of their watercraft.  This effort is led by DEP Park Police and Conservation Officers, with assistance from the New Jersey State Police, Marine Police Bureau, and in concert with the municipal Chiefs of Police within the Barnegat Bay watershed.  This initiative will be conducted during normal business operations, thus minimizing any extra expenditure of funding. Some funds will be expended for educational materials so that people are aware of the regulations that are in place to responsibly operate watercraft on the Bay.

As DEP aggressively implements the Governor’s 10 points, various staff within the Department continue to contribute in additional ways in the course their normal job duties.  Enforcement has been active in identifying sources of pollution and taking necessary steps to mitigate those sources.  The air program has dedicated resources to ensuring that air pollution sources are considered in the modeling inputs for assessing sources of pollution to the Bay and has called attention to the “anti-idling” provisions of the law which prohibit unnecessary idling of watercraft as well as vehicles within the watershed.  The New Jersey Geological Survey has contributed to the science. 

• Question: What will be the impact on the DEP’s budget and staff resources?

Answer: Programs have leveraged funding from local sources to obtain personnel and operating fund contributions which, when brought together in a single purpose (under a single project plan) can lead to greater insights about necessary steps to improve water quality in the Bay.  The outside resources have not been quantified in this analysis with the exception of the direct contribution of over $1 million from the United States Geological Survey over the two-fiscal-year period. For FY 2011, 2012 and 2013, a total of over $43.5 million is budgeted for Barnegat Bay-related work, with about 17 FTE per year spending time on the project. Of the $43.5 million most is from federal sources and leveraged EIT funding addressing the clean water and stormwater management needs of the Barnegat Bay.  The greatest value of the Barnegat Bay 10-point plan has been to invigorate the citizens living in the watershed to empower them to take part (large or small) in improving the health of the Barnegat Bay. 

10. On May 4, 2011, the DEP implemented the New Jersey Saltwater Recreational Registry Program.  This program will obtain more accurate and timely recreational fishing data, and will help fisherman and policy makers work together to better account for the contributions and impacts of saltwater anglers on ocean ecosystems and coastal economies.

• Question: How much did it cost the DEP to implement the program and what are the projected annual operating costs and staff resources needed to administer the registry program for FY 2013 and beyond?

Answer: The development cost of the Registry Program was $123,200, including the initial administrative costs associated with establishing the Administrative Order for the Registry Program, creation of the website and database, and execution of an agreement (MOA) with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Salary Costs $54,900

Database Development   57,600

Operating   10,700

          $123,200

The future costs, based on the current program’s design, are estimated to run at $73,600. 

Salary Cost   $42,800

IT Costs   28,800

Operating       2,000

$73,600

11. On August 18, 2011 the DEP unveiled a comprehensive set of guidelines that revamps and modernizes New Jersey’s inconsistent and outdated policies and fee schedules regarding the leasing of State lands that prevented the State from being fairly compensated for private use of those lands.

• Question: Have all the guidelines been adopted and implemented?  How much additional revenue has been received in FY 2012, thus far, and what amount is projected for FY 2013?  Where and when will this added revenue be utilized?

Answer: The recommendations outlined in the Interagency State Land Lease Valuation Panel Report pertain to multiple New Jersey State agencies.  The recommendations that fall under the sole jurisdiction of the DEP have been implemented.  Many of the other recommendations that fall under the purview of other agencies or shared responsibility, such as some of the councils or commissions that are related to DEP, have also been implemented.  Most significant among these are changes to the method DEP uses to assess leases of linear corridor projects across State land.  Implementing the recommendations from the report regarding linear projects has resulted in decreased costs and increased revenue for the State of New Jersey for the private use of State land.  As new leases are let and expiring or outdated leases are renewed, the new policy is resulting in significant revenue increases for these linear projects.  Other agencies that have already implemented the recommendations of the interagency panel include Office of the State Treasurer, New Jersey Water Supply Authority, and the New Jersey Tidelands Resource Council.

 

NJEF Must Publicly Apologize for This Huge Mistake – No Rewrite Of History

Back in an April 25, 2011 post, I posed this question:

When will NJEF revoke their Christie endorsement?

Well, it looks like a variant of that moment is coming – a press advisory by NJEF indicates that NJEF will issue some form of public statement, likely distancing themselves from the Christie Administration.

But how do you take this stuff back?

~~~ “Environmentalists look forward to working with Christie ”  –  Daily Record Nov. 8, 2009 

“We are optimistic going forward that Christie will keep his promises to put an emphasis on science over politics and to ensure we are developing in the right places,” Pringle said. “He had the strongest environmental agenda and the most detailed plans.”

~~~ “Eco-Lobby frets over rules freeze” – Asbury Park Press November 23, 2009

David Pringle, campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said “the state has a lot of inefficiencies and overlapping and conflicting rules, and there’s plenty of things that have absolutely no impact on environmental and public health protection.”

~~~ “DEP rules under review, agency’s fate uncertain” (DEP Transition Report) – Asbury Park Press Feb. 6, 2010

But Karrow wrote and takes full responsibility for the report, according to David Pringle, a member of the panel that issued the report. He is campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, a coalition of 100 groups and 100,000 individual members.

However, Steve Wilson, a spokesman for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, said a colleague David Brogan, vice president for environmental policy helped write the report.

~~~ “Kudos and caution greet Christie’s business boost – Backers cheer changes that let firms weigh in early on new rules. Some environmentalists worry” (DEP Transition Report) – Philadelphia Inquirer Feb. 14, 2010

The business community is thrilled, while environmental advocates worry the economy will be used as a cover to dismantle longtime protections.

Christie is “saying that the state has to reform and redo its regulatory process so that it’s no longer a disincentive for new investment,” said Hal Bozarth, executive director of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey. “That’s frankly the first time in my long tenure that I’ve heard those things.” […]

Dave Pringle, campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, which endorsed Christie, was the sole representative of environmental advocacy groups on the DEP transition team. While he disagreed with the tone of the report, Pringle said it contained many ideas his group supported, including prioritizing science over political considerations.

~~~  “Christie enacts moratorium on regulations” NJN TV news story – March 12, 2010

“This process [i.e. the moratorium, Red Tape Review Group, cost/benefit analysis, and new federal standards policy of Gov. Christie’s Executive Orders 1-3] could just enable them to have a better understanding of what they’re getting themselves in to.” Dave Pringle

~~~ “DEP to begin massive overhaul” –  Bergen Record Oct. 8, 2010

Bill Wolfe with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility is also concerned. “DEP’s mission, established by law, is to protect the environment and public health, not grow the economy,” he said. “Martin’s views are at odds with law, almost 40 years of practice, and the reality of environmental policy, where compliance burdens often cost industry real money. ‘Greater flexibility’ is merely a code for providing ‘regulatory relief.‘ ”

David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation was more reserved in his assessment of the plan. “It’s a healthy process for an agency to look at how they’re doing things and modernize to be more effective,” he said.

~~~ “DEP looking to private contractors to oversee some permit applications” – Bergen Record Oct. 1, 2010

“It’s good the DEP would still have final say on permits, but a lot of this conflicts with what Governor Christie said during the campaign about not privatizing the land-use program,” said David Pringle. […]

“This is not a privatization of the land-use permit process,” the DEP’s Hajna said. “The contractor won’t sign off on permit applications. They will provide technical assistance on an as-needed basis. Final approval would still go through DEP staff.”

~~~ “Environmental groups worry about Christie agency” –  Philadelphia Inquirer Oct. 13, 2010 

Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey Chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said dispute resolution was particularly prone to abuse because it was designed to overrule the judgment of DEP staff.

“The danger comes not only in using politics and intervention from above to overrule the technical judgment of staff, but when those meetings go down, there’s not really accountability or transparency,” Wolfe said. “If it were on the record with full disclosure, there would be an entirely different dynamic.”

Not all environmental advocates are on the same page. Dave Pringle, campaign director for the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, which endorsed Christie, a Republican, over incumbent Democrat Jon S. Corzine in the last election, said that while the Office of Dispute Resolution under Whitman was used to undermine environmental law, the Christie administration has assured the foundation that that will not be the case this time around.

Pringle said his organization was willing to withhold judgment until the evidence was in.

Business advocates welcome the new office. 

~~~ “Christie names Judge Lee Solomon to head BPU” – NJ Newsroom January 21, 2010

“Lee Solomon has the legal, environmental, personal, and political background to ensure a cleaner, greener 21st century”, said Sharon Finlayson, the [NJ Environmental] Federation’s chairwoman.

In addition to Christie’s energy industry agenda, the BPU is expected to play an important role implementing some of the key pieces of the governor’s environmental agenda including:

Implementing the Global Warming Response Act and Energy Master Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with greater emphasis on clean renewables and energy efficiency;

~~~ “The Myth of a divided environmental community” NJ Spotlight, Mike Catania Op-Ed June 29, 2011

To be sure, the governor has gotten an awful lot of mileage out of the fact that the NJ Environmental Federation somehow deluded itself into endorsing him. And it has been downright embarrassing to watch Dave Pringle twist himself into a pretzel during the past 18 months trying desperately to find a way to say something positive and upbeat about the governor’s latest assault on New Jersey’s environmental regulatory infrastructure.

~~~ “To keep NJ parks in funds, Christie will allow some privatization” (Phil Gregory, Nov. 2, 2011

The plan looks good, according to Dave Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation.

“For us, the two litmus tests were entrance fees–and those are staying the same–and no naming rights, and that’s not in there.” Pringle said. “It’s appropriate to provide better amenities and concessions for our parks consistent with the mission of those parks.”

~~~ “THE 43rd PRESIDENT: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; Whitman Seen as Strong Choice for E.P.A.” –  NY Times Dec. 21, 2000

“[…] … David S. Pringle, campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, commended the governor’s open-space program and other initiatives in her second term.

”She’s gone from bad to better, and hopefully it’ll go to good’‘ at the E.P.A., Mr. Pringle said.

These are just a few examples of overt media support – there were countless other behind the scenes slimy moves by Pringle and NJEF.

For example, NJEF and Pringle provided cover for the Christie betrayal on mandating installation of cooling towers at Oyster Creek nuke plant, a move that would have shut the plant down, not extended its operating life 10 more years.

NJEF also defending the Governor’s fatally flawed Barnegat Bay plan and provided cover for veto’s of storm water and TMDL legislation.

NJEF has done virtually nothing on holding Christie accountable for his betrayal on  his promise to develop and implement environmental justice and cumulative impact standards for heavily burdened urban communities.

But perhaps the most damaging was to undercut those – myself included – advocating early opposition to gutting of the Water Quality Management Planning rules and rejecting participation in the DEP “Fakeholder process”.  Instead of mounting an environmental defense campaign to defend the WQMP rules, the Pringle led faction spent many months, resources, and countless hours in the room with the DEP Fakeholders – a HUGE missed opportunity to generate public pressure to block the gutting of those rules.

The cover NJEF provided emboldened the Governor and DEP Commissioner Martin to take even more radical steps in gutting environmental and public heath protections (e.g. the waiver rule, Highlands appointments, et al).

NJEF false praise and support undermined and delayed efforts by the entire environmental community to mount an environmental defense campaign, generate public and legislative opposition, and hold the Governor accountable.

The NJEF spin bamboozled some reporters and distorted news coverage, leading to countless equivocal “he said/she said” stories that continue to pollute public discourse.

NJEF also provided cover for anti-environmental legislators and loyal Christie backers.

Pringle’s support of Christie’ park funding plan is especially bad. The Christie Plan ignores collection of easement revenue form power lines and pipelines. It unfairly shifts burden to the public.  It increases commercialization of public parks. It will facilitate crony profiteering at the expense of public parks mission. It does nothing to address then huge maintenance backlog. Pringle is an idiot and a tool.

And, with all this and more, NJEF  simply disgusted and pissed me off.

Regardless of my disgust, any moves NJEF could make at this point would not undo the damage and come far too late to warrant forgiveness, after over 2 years of environmental abuse which was masked by NJEF political and media shilling.

[Update: I just got a call from a reporter – apparently, NJEF issued a Report Card on Christie – I think D overall grade, with an F on global warming. While I didn’t take issue with the grades (having not reviewed it), I did question why NJEF released this Report card now (too little, too late, and not nearly enough to redeem themselves) and why was there was no mention of over 2 years of support and enabling the policies they now grade so poorly.]

Quote of the day:

“Some of it is just completely inappropriate,” said Sen. Jennifer Beck of District 11 (Monmouth County), who supports the resolution. “They’re really being piggish here”

The “piggishness” Senator Beck alludes to, as reported in today’s Asbury Park Press, is having water consumers – me and you – pay for country club dues, corporate marketing, and – get this – lobbying.

So, we are paying for a private water company to lobby legislators and regulators to increase their profits and weaken public health and environmental protections over the quality and quantity of our water supply!

The resolution cites witness testimony that said the water company’s costs included country club, lobbying and marketing fees in its calculation.

This is happening at a time when company profits rose by 16% in the last quarter.

As we’ve written, privatization and deregulation of water is not in the public interest (e.g. see this and this and this and this).

But it could be worse.

We read that in Italy and Greece, bankers are dictating policy to democratically elected governments. Some of the dictates include mandating that labor laws be weakened, pension benefits be reduced, and water be privatized.

As University of Massachusetts at Amherst economics professor Epstein noted (read and watch the interview):

We have this trend now where instead of democratically elected governments controlling these countries, so-called technocrats, the central bankers, are coming in, taking over as the prime ministers of governments in Italy, in Greece. In Italy we have Monti, and in Greece we have Papademos. These are supposed to be neutral arbiters of economic policy, but in fact are mostly doing the bidding of the large banks. And the other European countries, especially Germany, they want austerity.

And what’s amazing to me about is they’re going way beyond any kind of narrow policies with respect to debt repayment, monetary policy. They’re going into the deep core of social and economic policy in many of these countries. And that letter from the central bank, the European Central Bank, that you described went to the highly contested issues that have plagued Italy for many years about labor laws, privatization, and many others.

Here in the good ole’ democratic US of A, the dictates from Wall Street are not so transparent and heavy handed.

Much more subtle means are used, like threats to downgrade public debt ratings, destruction of pension plans, and advocacy of privatizing assets like the turnpike (for NJ examples, see:

• Downgrade Fears Sparked Move on Tolls
• S&P downgrade of U.S. credit rating signals crisis of faith

• Gov. Christie says he’s not surprised by Fitch’s downgrading of N.J. credit rating
• Despite Pension Overhaul, New Jersey Suffers Another Credit Rating Blow

So why is it that the news papers never report these austerity, privatization and deregulation policy responses to Wall Street threats as fundamental attacks on the concept of democratic government?

DEP Commissioner Martin Reflects on First Two Years

With headlines like that, I reveal my age. But, I’m talking about work – never on Sunday!

However, I need to bang out [no pun] a quick rebuttal of DEP Commissioner Martin’s “midway” “Q&A” interview with the Star Ledger editorial folks, which was published today.

Martin actually did a very good job spinning a disastrous record. He has greatly improved in his first 2 years in office, in terms of getting the DEP programs straight and delivering a message.

Martin’s early efforts were awkward and the attempts to rigidly “stay on message” came off like transparent spin. But now, he’s effectively managed to integrate the spin into the DEP program lingo, a much more convincing package.

Martin speaks confidently and forcefully. So now, his use of the correct terminology enables a fairly solid rhetorical defense.

Piercing that defense requires that the critic be both substantively informed and adversarial, something very few media professionals and legislators have the time for. Few seem willing to get in this Administration’s face and push back on the bullshit.

So, I thought I’d take a brief shot at laying out the policy criticisms that are implicit in Tom Moran’s set of mostly critical questions and rebut some of Martin’s spin.

Moran was prepared and did a reasonably good job on the questions. But his role in the interview was to give the Administration an opportunity to reflect on the first two years and to provide a platform to defend themselves from increasingly harsh criticisms by environmentalists, legislators and media. Moran’s style and purpose was not to push back against Martin’s claims.

I) Waiver rule

Martin is trying to rename and thereby reframe the waiver rule as akin to a local land use variance – as if he merely renamed the waiver rule the problems would magically disappear (“If we could rename it, we’d call it the variance rule”).

But, to paraphrase the Bard, a turd by any other name is still a turd.

Substantively, Martin continues to mislead by claiming “public emergencies” justify the waiver rule.

But Martin and the Governor don’t need a rule to respond to real emergencies – they already have that power under a Governor’s Emergency Declaration or a Commissioner’s Administrative Order.

Martin was asked to provide an example – his use of flood hazard and site remediation regulations does not make sense (unless Martin has been talking to Pfizer about their plan to leave lots of toxic waste in the Raritan River floodplain at the former American Cyanamid site!).

The objectives of the Flood hazard rules are not in conflict with cleanup – unless Martin is talking about the buffer requirements, which do restrict disturbance and therefore could impact a cleanup.

But the answer to those kind of site specific regulatory conflicts is for the DEP experts to navigate them on a case-by-case basis and craft a workable solution, or to fix the underlying conflicts in the rules themselves. These internal solutions keep DEP in control of the solutions and  assure that any conflicting or competing regulatory objectives are harmonized in a way that maintains environmental safeguards.

There is no need for a waiver rule to provide a flexible, effective, and protective solution.

In contrast to internal DEP resolution, a waiver rule puts control in the hands of the engineers and lawyers for the permittee (applicant/developer), and virtually assures that any “solution” will be driven by economic concerns and surely will undermine environmental safeguards.

II) Transparency – Campaign finance

Martin thinks that website posting of waivers will resolve the fundamental conflicts that will be created by the waiver rule. This is nonsense.

[Update: we told you so: today the Star Ledger’s Auditor reports: Lines already forming for new DEP waiver rule?]

As Moran question notes, there is total lack of transparency on the front end – e.g. from political donations and back room interventions.

Political interventions at DEP occur – as recent criminal indictments of NJ Legislators Van Pelt and Smith have shown – through things like phonce calls and off the record informal meetings in diners where cash changes hands.

New Offices Governor Christie created (e.g. Lt. Governor’s Red Tape reports, Business action center, etc) have made these kind of persistent political problems far worse.

The waiver rule provides the mechanism for the political deal to go though without fingerprints, exactly the opposite of the transparency Martin speaks of.

Before the waiver rule existed, the politicians ran a real risk because the corrupt political deal required a violation of the DEP regulations. That violation could be revealed by a whistleblower, or an intrepid journalist, or expert environmental lawyer or activist.

That detection risk no longer exists as a result of the waive rule.

The deals now comply with the regulations. It is now open season on corruption.

III) Air pollution – Midwestern Coal plant litigation strategy

Martin does not respond to Moran’s question, which exposes the absurdity of Martin’s strategy to invest legal resources in individual plant by plant litigation, as opposed to a blanket EPA rule that applies to ALL plants.

The EPA regulatory approach is faster and far more efficient and cost effective  than Martin’s approach. This is obvious!

IV) Barnegat Bay

Moran did a nice job in exposing fatal flaws in Christie’s BB “10 point plan”, e.g. it

• fails to include development restrictions
• actually promotes new development by blocking the removal of environmentally sensitive lands from sewer service areas, which would have occurred under the old DEP WQMP rules, and weakening the enforcement of CAFRA and C1 buffer rules.
• fails to fund necessary infrastructure and storm water management requirements

The only important issues left out was the Governor’s veto of the TMDL bill and Martin’s delegation of DEP science to the new Science Advisory Board. We’ve written about these issues in detail and thus will not repeat all that here.

V) Budget – clean energy diversions

Martin has no reply – Moran could have made this question even stronger by pointing out prior budget diversions of clean energy funds (and termination of RGGI, which while it had no impact on GHG emissions, did fund clean energy).

The Christie Energy Master Plan also erects new “cost benefit” barriers to clean energy and mounts a sham across the board attack on so called renewable “subsidies” and excessively high energy costs due to public policy (a masked attack on the Societal Benefits Charge and a broad array of longstanding energy efficiency and conservation policies).

And, there are many other important DEP budget and parks issues are not addressed.

VI) Fracking

Moran made a technical error and missed the key issue here.

Correcting the error, the threat to NJ from NY and Pennyslvania fracking is NOT from groundwater.

Primary threats to NJ come from risks to: 1) Delaware River water quality; 2) diversions of billions of gallons of Delaware River basin waters to the water intensive fracking use; 3) importation of toxic fracking wastewater to NJ; 4) pipelines: 5) air pollution; and 6) undermining NJ policy and economic investments in global warming mitigation strategies and energy conservation and renewables, as the short term artificially low price of natural gas destroys the economics.

By missing these key issues, Moran allows Martin to spin about what is going on at DRBC.

Contrary to what Marin says, Christie and Martin are PROMOTING fracking via DRBC and are willing to permit NJ wastewater management.

I blame the ENGO;’s for not making this argument because they are misdirected and focused on a symbolic in-state fracking ban bill.

This is what happens when politics and ENGO campaign priorities trump policy.

VII) Water Quality Management Planning rules

That issue has gotten plenty of attention and Moran’s question really goes unanswered.

VIII) Below the radar developments

Martin takes credit for air pollution initiatives (peaking plants) and keeping the parks open.

I have not followed closely either one, so will provide a critical analysis on both soon.

Martin closes with this statement:

I wake up every morning focused on protecting the air, land, water and natural resources of this state. That’s my priority.

That, my friends, is one crock of bullshit.

It contradicts Governor Christie’s Execuive Orders, Lt. Governor Red Tape Reports, and Martin’s own Administrative Orders, vision statement, regulatory policy, and numerous press statements about “changing DEP culture” and corrupting DEP’s mission to “promote economic development” and provide better “customer service”.