NJ bill would increase medical waste fines – but lacks funding
Atlantic Highlands, NJ – Bill Wolfe talks about medical waste beach washups and the need to increase resources for enforcement of environmental laws, including the Medical Waste Management Act. Last summer, in the wake of disgusting medical waste washups on the shore – I wrote this post:
Making the environment a priority – where is the leadership?
Posted by Bill Wolfe August 26, 2008 7:17AM
More signs of erosion of environmental protection
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/08/making_the_environment_a_prior.html
“As the summer winds down and we head into the Labor Day weekend, the recent closure of Delaware Bay shellfisheries, proliferation of jellyfish, and wash-up of medical waste that closed Cape May beaches highlight the critical importance of protecting our environment (see:
Avalon’s beaches shut again over waste
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/186/story/237553.html
State hunts dumpers of medical waste off Avalon

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1219725396143840.xml&coll=1
Few seem to recall that in the wake of a series of revolting medical waste washups along the shore, in the spring of 1989 Governor Tom Kean signed the Medical Waste Management Act. That law put in place a comprehensive program at DEP to oversee proper disposal of medical waste (see: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/hwr/medinfo.htm
Since then, DEP budgets have been slashed, and as a direct result, monitoring and enforcement have been eroded.
Bad things – like medical waste on the beach – tend to happen when DEP budgets are cut and monitoring and enforcement are scaled back. This is no different than when the State Trooper and his radar gun are not there: people tend to speed.
Back in the 1990’s former Governor Whitman was slashing DEP budgets and rolling back regulations and enforcement. Whitman cuts to the Shellfish Sanitation Program – which assures the safety of our seafood – caused the federal government to threaten to ban NJ’s ability to ship shellfish in interstate markets. Prompted by mobilized public concern – a group of NJ Senate Republicans stood up and literally drew a line in the sand (see extraordinary letter below).”
[End August 26, 2008 post]
At the time, there was exactly one person talking to the press about the NJ Medical Waste Management Act and the relationship between cuts in DEP resources, enforcement, and medical waste washups. Some were mis-focused on the voluntary EPA “floatables” plan.
Well it looks like someone was listening to some of my recommendations, but not others (like adequate resources to DEP to make enforcement a credible deterrent, because the bill is unfunded – see:
NJ bill would increase medical waste fines
March 16, 2009
TRENTON, N.J. – The state Assembly has approved a bill that would double the fines for a host of medical waste violations. 

Some penalties would jump to $100,000 per day under the measure passed Monday, and penalties for intentionally dumping any material into the ocean would stiffen.


The Senate Environment Committee also approved the measure on Monday. 

Last summer, several beaches along the Jersey Shore were closed temporarily after syringes, gauze and other debris washed ashore.










































The bill needs approval from the full Senate before Gov. Jon S. Corzine can sign it into law.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj-xgr–medicalwaste0316mar16,0,1810999.story
The bill still needs to pass the Senate – So, let’s hope the NJ Senate – led by the shore delegation – can rise to the occasion, and pass the bill with some money to fund enforcement programs to protect the Shore, just like they did in May of 1996 in response to Whitman Administration DEP budget cuts (see below letter):
NEW JERSEY SENATE

Trenton, NJ, May 16, 1996.

The HONORABLE CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN,
Governor,

State of New Jersey

State House CN-001

Trenton, NJ 08625-0001
DEAR GOVERNOR WHITMAN:
Among all the responsibilities of government, there are few of greater importance, or of more concern to the public than the protection of New Jersey’s environment and the quality of public health. We know that protecting these important concerns, and carrying out these responsibilities through appropriate State actions and support is a priority you share with the Legislature and the general public. It is in recognition of that shared commitment to protecting New Jersey’s environment and public health that we write to you today.
We are greatly concerned that your proposed budget for fiscal year 1997 does not adequately provide the necessary resources to State government to meet the environmental challenges facing the State. This is especially true in the proposed funding for the Department of Environmental Protection.
The proposed budget would require dramatic reductions in scientific, technical and human resources critical to the mission of the Department. In a State facing the environmental issues New Jersey does, we need to respond aggressively to the challenges of insuring that our air is safe to breath, the water safe to drink or the empty lot next door safe to play in. It is highly questionable as to whether the Department will maintain the requisite expertise and resources under the fiscal year 1997 budget proposal to answer these questions and respond in a way protective of public health and the environment.
We are also concerned that the proposed reduction in resources will not fulfill the new approaches to environmental protection. The successful implementation of the initiatives under discussion will require additional resources above and beyond those currently available to the DEP. Many of the ”reengineering” initiatives being undertaken by the Department will be fundamentally handicapped by the proposed reductions in resources contained in the current budget proposal.
Due to these concerns we feel that it is important that you be aware we may not be able to support this budget proposal, should it come before the Senate in its current form The historical erosion of staffing at the Department experienced over past important that you be aware we may not be able to support this budget proposal, should it come before the Senate in its current form The historical erosion of staffing at the Department experienced over past budget cycles cannot be continued because the environmental goals we have outlined above will not be attainable.
We feel strongly that the proposed layoffs of DEP personnel will negatively impact the Department’s ability to effectively safeguard the environment and protect public health. Therefore, we cannot support a final DEP budget which contains employee
layoffs.
We are, of course, committed to working with you to restore the resources we feel are necessary to carry out the critical functions of the Department of Environmental Protection We feel that it is very possible to identity appropriate resources, sources of funding and approaches to achieve this, and we ask for the opportunity to explore these with you and your staff.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN O. BENNETT,
Senate Majority Leader.
ANDREW R. CIESIA,
Senator.
JOSEPH M. KYRILLOS,
Senator.
HENRY P. MCNAMARA,
Senator.
JOSEPH A. PALAIA,
President Pro Tempore.
JACK G. SINAGRA,
Senator.
ROBERT W. SINGER,
Senator.
Link this letter @ page 123-124)
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/107s/69822.pdf
Hi Bill,
off topic.
I was hoping you could explain to me why there is a $10 “EPA fee” on radon tests in New Jeresy?
Other states don’t have any such charges and frankly, that is the only thing that prevents many people from buying the kit.
Thanks.
Zohar – sorry, I don’t know.
But, maybe the “fee” is imposed by the testing forms to recover the costs of various EPA or DEP regulatory oversight?
But that is pure speculation and assumes that radon testing forms are EPA certified.