Is Dupont Trying to Strong-arm EPA?
Or Has EPA Already Rubber Stamped Dupont’s Cleanup Plan?
The Sunday Bergen Record reported that Dupont published a public notice and submitted an application for a local dredge permit for the cleanup of the Acid Brook Delta portion of Pompton lake.
But the application was submitted to local officials in December, PRIOR to the January 5, 2012 EPA pubic hearing on the Dupont plan.
POMPTON LAKES — The Planning Board next month expects to hold a public hearing on DuPont’s application to begin its cleanup of the polluted Acid Brook delta on the edge of Pompton Lake.
The application for a permit to remove the contaminated soil was filed in December, said David C. Dixon, an attorney for DuPont. The project would remove more than 68,800 cubic yards of soil contaminated by heavy metals from DuPont’s explosives factory, which closed in 1994.
The application comes as DuPont is waiting for approval from the federal Environmental Protection Agency for the cleanup plan.
So, Dupont had final dredge plans prepared BEFORE the EPA review even began?
What does that say about the public hearing process? Residents can have no impact because the final dredge plan is already prepared?
What does that say about the EPA review of the Dupont dredging plan? EPA can not alter the scope of the cleanup and expand it from near shore sediments to the entire lake and removal of downriver sediments? This would mean removal of far more than 68,000 cubic yards.
Is Dupont trying to strong arm EPA by putting a final dredge plan on the table with local support before EPA can even review it and the public comments on it?
Or did Dupont  inadvertently reveal that EPA review really is just a rubber stamp and let the cat out of the bag that Dupont is dictating cleanup choices?
Inquiring minds what to know!
Bill were are the ones whom have seen nothing but smoke blown up our a__ since the start. I can not understand the Record or the public can not see a doc.
that was noticed in the paper and put in the Boro of Pompton Lakes hands I think I might have stepped in doggie Do Do I hope the people dont let this GO, Something really Stinks?
This article speaks for itself & the EPA should take note that they are insignificant in these matters apparently. Where is the accountability I ask all !?
@Meakem – A concern brought to my attention which was confirmed today from a resident living in contamination in Pompton Lakes, NJ. Re: Your group (PLREI). Info for you – Guess What? You are the only one of the group that signed this petition! They attended the SuperFund rally but to-date still have not signed the petition. I thought you should know. 8.063 and counting – Stop DuPont Chemical from Poisoning New Jersey Families – http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-dupont-chemical-from-poisoning-new-jersey-families
http://www.ecode360.com/12775471
Chapter 159. SOIL REMOVAL
MAJOR SOIL MINING PERMIT OR MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL PERMIT
A. Within 45 days after receipt of said application or within such further time as may be consented to by the application, the Planning Board shall review and consider the same and render its decision. Notice of the time and place of the Planning Board’s consideration of the application for a major soil permit shall be given by certified mail to the applicant.
B. The applicant shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in the official newspaper of the Borough at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing by the Planning Board. The applicant shall provide notice, by personal service or certified mail, within 10 days of the date of hearing, to all of the owners of real property located within 400 feet, in all directions, as their names appear on the municipal tax records, of the time, date, location and subject matter of said hearing. The affidavits of publication and service shall be filed with the Planning Board at the time of hearing.
C. The Planning Board shall have the right to engage the services of a planning consultant, an engineer, counsel, stenographer and other experts which it, in its discretion, believes necessary to make its decision. The Board, at its option, shall require the applicant to offer his proofs under oath.
§ 159-10. Planning Board decision.
The Planning Board shall deliver its report and shall grant, conditionally grant or deny the application for a major soil permit. The aforesaid shall be decided by resolution of the Planning Board, which shall be made within 45 days after completion of the public hearing, unless said time shall be extended with the approval of the applicant.
§ 159-11. Factors for application consideration.
In considering any application, the Borough Engineer or the Planning Board shall be guided by the general purpose of municipal planning and shall take into consideration the following:
A. Soil erosion by water and wind.
B. Surface water and wind.
C. Soil facility.
D. Lateral support of abutting streets and lands.
E. Public health and safety.
F. Land values and uses.
G. The general welfare of the Borough and its citizens.
H. The unsightliness of the premises after excavation.
I. The effect of flooding upon the premises in question.
J. Whether the proposed work will create a nuisance.
K. Whether the proposed work is necessary in connection with the development of the property.
L. Traffic congestion.
M. The effect the proposed activities will have on surface and subsurface drainage.
N. The preservation of existing watercourses.
O. The creation of sharp declivities, pits or depressions.
P. Whether the proposed removal of soil constitutes a commercial activity.
Q. Such other factors as may bear or relate to the coordinated, adjusted and harmonious physical development of the Borough.
R. Compatibility with the zoning scheme of the Borough.
S. The effect of the use of blasting in the operation on adjoining properties, public utilities (gas, water, telephone, electric and CATV) and transmission lines and the general public.
T. Methods in ingress and egress to and from site.
I guess that is good for me and the residents. Have you sent it to others? I know I passed it on….@Lisa Riggiola
@Ed Meakem
Ed – I like this provision in the ordinance for planning board review:
“E. Public health and safety.”
The dredging operation would impact public health via mercury bioaccumulation in fish and wildlife.
How will the Planning Board consider those issues?
@Ed Meakem
@Meakem – I am sure they know all about the petition Ed. In fact they showed up at the rally in support of a SuperFund designation meanwhile was it just to be seen since their signatures have not appeared on the petition? Interesting concept.
@Bill – the question is how will this unfold? I want to know the EPA’s stance on this. Did you hear any feedback from the EPA on this issue yet Bill?
Check Planning meeting minutes as soon as you can you will find some info….
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Ltr. from URS (DuPont)
Re: Application for Permit
Chairman Silverstein stated that DuPont is applying for a general permit for cutting and clearing trees. They are seeking a hardship exception because they are going to exceed the amount of vegetation which can cleared. At this point, this is just for our general information. If this permit is approved, they will then need to appear before this board.
Mr. Gadaleta stated that DuPont will be coming before this board for a mining permit as part of the lake remediation project. This permit will be for site work on the land and not for the excavation of any soil.
Chairman Silverstein stated that Mrs. Schlagel passed out an email from Ms. Novak with regard to the 45 day comment period. A public hearing is going to be held December 15th in our council chambers.
C’man Steele asked if the truck route had been planned out yet?
Chairman Silverstein replied that after the public comment period, the route would be discussed with this board.
Mr. Schwartz then stated how the bridge between the DuPont Village and Cannonball is permanently damaged as a result of DuPont activities. When DuPont was asked to make the repairs needed, they responded by saying that they had no legal obligation to repair it as it was a public road and it was the Borough’s obligation to maintain a public road.
Mr. Lewis stated that he would have to research this matter.
Mr. Gadaleta stated that no one knows who owns the bridge. The county doesn’t, and the state said it is not an orphan bridge; it will probably be the Borough’s responsibility at some point.
C’man Steele replied that all these questions and comments should be made at the December 15th meeting, as they will be taking all this information under consideration when they grant this application.
PB
11/15/11
Page 3
Chairman Silverstein stated that if he is available, he would be attending the meeting on the 15th.
Discussion with regard to the possible truck route that may be taken for this project. It was concluded that the county would not allow the bridge on DuPont Place that crosses the acid brook to be used, so there would probably be no choice but to go to Jefferson Ave, Colfax Ave and then to Oakland to get on 287.