WolfeNotes.com

In the dark of night, yesterday the 2010 – 2011 Legislative session finally ended.

It was a very bad day for the environment, public health, truth, and democracy.

Fittingly, one of the final shameful legislative acts was a 27-9 [error: 29-7] Senate vote to confirm Richard Vodhen to the Highlands Council.

Vohden had not only strongly opposed and worked against the Highlands Act (and failed to disclose that on the Judiciary Committee questionnaire), but outright lied to the Judiciary Committee about it.

(see this superb blow by blow piece by  Juliet Fletcher of the Record’s “The Source” blog: Christie’s Highlands nominee once fought against preservation act

But imagine that: only 9 [7] NJ Senators have a problem with confirming a liar.

(and its not the first time. The precendent for getting away with lying to the Judiciary Cmte to get confirmed as a Highlands Council member was set by the Rilee confirmation, see: Another Christie Highlands Act Opponent Released by Judiciary Committee_

We are reminded of Greek philosopher Diogenes, who carried a lamp through the streets of Athens in search of one honest man.

But Vohden – a political small fry – only engaged in little lies.

The Big Lies were played by the Leadership.

The Republicans, led by Governor Christie – with support of Democratic leaders like Sweeney and their corporate puppet masters in the Chamber of Commerce – have shamelessly propagated a Big Lie (and I use “Big Lie” as a term of art in the realm of propaganda).

The Big Lie is that environmental regulations – cynically scapegoated with the slogan “Red Tape” – harm the economy and are a significant cause of the economic recession, unemployment and fiscal crises.

But heck, don’t believe me – read Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently wrote:

The good news: After spending a year and a half talking about deficits, deficits, deficits when we should have been talking about jobs, job, jobs we’re finally back to discussing the right issue.

The bad news: Republicans, aided and abetted by many conservative policy intellectuals, are fixated on a view about what’s blocking job creation that fits their prejudices and serves the interests of their wealthy backers, but bears no relationship to reality.

Listen to just about any speech by a Republican presidential hopeful, and you’ll hear assertions that the Obama administration is responsible for weak job growth. How so? The answer, repeated again and again, is that businesses are afraid to expand and create jobs because they fear costly regulations and higher taxes. …

The first thing you need to know, then, is that there’s no evidence supporting this claim and a lot of evidence showing that it’s false. …

So Republican assertions about what ails the economy are pure fantasy, at odds with all the evidence. Should we be surprised?

At one level, of course not. Politicians who always cater to wealthy business interests say that economic recovery requires catering to wealthy business interests. Who could have imagined it?

Yet it seems to me that there is something different about the current state of economic discussion. Political parties have often coalesced around dubious economic ideas — remember the Laffer curve? — but I can’t think of a time when a party’s economic doctrine has been so completely divorced from reality. And I’m also struck by the extent to which Republican-leaning economists — who have to know better — have been willing to lend their credibility to the party’s official delusions.

Partly, no doubt, this reflects the party’s broader slide into its own insular intellectual universe. Large segments of the G.O.P. reject climate science and even the theory of evolution, so why expect evidence to matter for the party’s economic views?

So lets look at just one of the Big Lies the Legislature swallowed last night.

Following Governor Christie’s lead, they passed a bill to allow extension of sewer lines into and promote development of 300,000 acres of NJ’s last remaining environmentally sensitive lands: forests, endangered species habitat, sensitive stream corridors, and reservoir watersheds.

The alleged justification of the bill was to promote economic development and jobs. As Tom Johnson wrote:

Business lobbyists disputed the environmentalists’ take on the day. Michael Egenton, senior vice president of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, said the day’s agenda reflected recognition of how bad the state’s economy is.

“I think the legislature has had a reality check,” Egenton said. “They realize that jobs and the economy are the top priority. When they look at a bill, they ask, ‘Does it create jobs, does it stimulate the economy, and can it put people to work?’ ” he said.

As we’ve noted numerous times, the economic recession has nothing to do with environmental regulations and everything to do with lack of regulation of Wall Street speculation and fraud.

The construction industry is depressed due to the bursting of the real estate bubble, which was fueled by reckless Wall Street excess. There are record surpluses of vacant commercial space and foreclosed upon homes. At the same time, there is record low demand for new construction.

So, the legislation to allow expansion of sewers purportedly to serve construction will do absolutely nothing to create jobs or economic development.

Even worse – if that is imaginable – is that even if there were demand for new construction, the bill still would be insane.

NJ has a $28 BILLION water infrastructure deficit.

We can’t maintain the existing sewer infrastructure, so why on earth would we want to spend money on extending new sewer lines?

This kind of legislation could only pass in our totally corrupt, fact free political environment, fueled by lies, special interest money, and divorced from all democratic principles or public opinion.

[w/Update below]

Monday (1/9/12 ) is the final day of the 2010-2011 legislative session.

I checked the Senate and Assembly Board lists and noted  several bad bills that are posted for final approval.

• DEP Waiver Rule

Equally bad to the bills posted is what is not.

Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Oliver failed to post the “DEP Waiver rule” Resolution (SCR239/ACR206) that would declare that DEP waiver rule inconsistent with legislative intent and begin the process of either blocking its adoption of legislatively vetoing it.

Here’s what the Star Ledger said about the DEP waiver rule:

By itself, the DEP’s proposed “waiver rule” is perhaps the most dangerous, overreaching and potentially corrupting document in Trenton. It is the nuke that would give the Christie administration near-unlimited power to set aside decades of hard-won environmental protections for … any reason it wants.

… The waiver rule is written with such vague language that it could be used to overrule any environmental rule at any time for any reason. It is an audacious move by Gov. Chris Christie, the single greatest threat to decades of work to protect New Jersey’s air, wildlife and water.

In addition to the substance of the waiver issue, failure to post the Resolutions is a huge political setback and another indicator that the Democratic leadership in Trenton is just as hostile to the environment as Governor Christie.

Senator Buono, with the backing of environmental groups, had put a lot of energy into the issue. Buono created an on-line petition that got thousands of signatures and generated considerable pressure on Senate President Sweeney.

Unless there is some horse trading or last minute procedure to amend the Board lists and get these Resolutions passed, this obviously is a setback to her leadership efforts and another example of Sweeney’s support for – or refusal to challenge – Governor Christie’s policies.

It also highlights the importance of regulatory policy and the efforts of the Christie Administration to use regulatory tools to subvert environmental laws and legislative powers.

DEP Commissioner Martin must view this as a green light to adopt the proposal, and his rollback agenda is emboldened by the failure of the Democratic leadership.

• Commercial Logging State lands – Dirty Water

Other bad bills that are up on Monday include the commercial logging bill (S1954[2R]/A4358[1R]) and dirty water bill (S3156[1R]/A4335 ACS).

For good reason, these two bills have gotten the priority attention of environmental groups and media.

But flying under the radar are the following bad bills, which attack arcane but highly significant regulatory practices.

Significantly, they are sponsored by Senator Oroho, who is the NJ member of the right wing Koch Brothers’ funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) :

• Regulatory Flexibility (A2129/S1336)

We wrote about that bill here – I will not rehash the arguments, so hit the link for information (Regulatory Flexibility Bill A Formula for Gridlock and Rollback

[Update: Business community view:

Laurie Ehlbeck, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said members of her group would like to see Christie maintain his approach to cutting regulations. She hopes such efforts will build on the Regulatory Flexibility Act expansion that was advancing at the end of the legislative session in January.]

• Contested Cases – Strip DEP Commissioner of Final Decision Power (S2666/A2722)

This bill would change the current practices regarding final decisions in contested cases taken to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). It applies to virtually all state agencies, but I will discuss just the DEP aspects.

In most cases, before a legal challenge can get to a court, the challenger must first exhaust all administrative remedies and secure “final agency action”.

So when a polluter or developer challenges a DEP rule, permit, or enforcement decision, she/he must first go to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where a trial like hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

After hearing the evidence, the ALJ then issues an opinion in the case.

But, under current law, the “final decision” to agree with and accept or reject the ALJ’s opinion rests with the DEP Commissioner.

The DEP Commissioner frequently overrules the ALJ’s decision, and for good reason.

First of all, often these cases raise important statewide regulatory policy issues that are far broader and more significant than the individual controversy in the case that is before the ALJ. The DEP Commissioner is in a better position to balance individual case specific justice and the broader public interest.

Plus, the polluter/developer can appeal the DEP Final decision to a Court of law, so their due process rights and the interests of justice are protected.

In other OAL cases, the ALJ may not fully understand or have misinterpreted complex scientific and/or technical issues that an ALJ is not competent to analyze. In those cases, the DEP Commissioner is in a far better position to make the final decision.

This bill would reverse all that and make the ALJ decision final.

That would invite even more administrative appeals of DEP rules, permits, and enforcement decisions and result in more successful attacks on environmental protection and enforcement of envirommental laws.

The bill is a subtle but across the board assault on environmental protections and should be opposed.

[Update:

• Oil Spill liability cave – S2108

A bill drafted in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil blowout, that would appear to eliminate the cap on liability for oil and chemical spills, is up as well.

While some may see this as a positive, don’t fall for the Trenton Kabuki.

Make no mistake, it illustrates a total collapse by legislators – on a bipartisan basis – to the powerful lobbyists of the chemical and oil industries.

The introduced version of the bill was serious but the final version is now a corrupt and cynical joke.

Legislators gutted the bill by exempting inland oil and chemical facilities and narrowing the bill to spills ONLY from a drilling platform!. There are no and never will be any drilling platforms in NJ or off the NJ coast)

So if an oil tanker spills in the Delaware River – or a chemical plant blows up and kills nearby residents, they will have their liability capped at only $50 million.

For the ugly details on all that, see:   Gulf Blowout Prompts NJ lawmakers to Seek Increase In Polluter Liability To $1 Billion

Dupont Partial Lake Cleanup Plan Uses Flawed Science to Minimize Problem

Florio Lets Liability Cat Out of the Bag

EPA must stand by Regional Administrator Enck’s commitment and their own science and reject the Dupont proposal.

Dupont has a big mercury problem in Pompton Lakes, NJ (in addition to the cancer cluster and vapor intrusion).

Scientifically and legally, the problem is similar to General Electric’s (GE) problem with dumping toxic and bioaccumulative PCB’s in the Hudson River, where, according to EPA:

From approximately 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its capacitor manufacturing plants at the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities into the Hudson River.

That GE dumping poisoned 200 miles of the Hudson River, leading EPA to declare that portion of the River a Superfund site and forcing GE to cleanup the river at a cost of over $500 million.

Like GE, for almost 100 years, Dupont used and disposed of mercury compounds at their explosives manufacturing facility.

Like GE, mercury air emissions and mercury dumping on the Dupont site have led to significant off site releases, so that soils and sediments along the the Acid Brook, Pompton Lake, and natural resource and the downriver region are poisoned.

Mercury is highly toxic to humans, fish and wildlife – it bioaccumulates through the food chain. Its effects are magnified by predators up the food chain and persist for many years.

Like in the the Hudson River, because of mercury pollution, it is unsafe to eat freshwater fish in NJ – and consumption warnings are posted on Pompton Lake (but largely ignored).

Dupont wiped out an entire fishery.

And like Hudson River PCB’s, EPA has extensive national scientific and regulatory experience with mercury in the Great lakes region that is relevant to Dupont Pompton Lakes.

Like GE, Dupont wants to minimize the cost of cleanup and resists EPA cleanup mandates.

I don’t know about GE/Hudson, but in Pompton lakes, EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck has given the community multiple assurances that EPA will hold Dupont accountable and strictly enforce environmental laws. For example, in an October 14, 2010 reply letter, RA Enck assured me that:

You have my commitment that the Environmental Protection Agency will ensure that Dupont will fulfill its RCRA obligations for this facility.

But Dupont has proposed a partial cleanup plan of just a 26 acre portion of the 250 acre Pompton Lake – no downriver sediment removal is being considered at this time. Dozens of areas of toxic soil contamination on the Dupont site still have not been cleaned up (after 30 years).

The plan is not only for only a small part of the Lake, but it is based on flawed science.

The Dupont plan must be approved by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the most important environmental law you probably never even heard of (and the polluters like it that way).

But now the Dupont plan is in EPA’s lap, which in some ways makes Dupont’s mercury problem EPA’s problem too.

Was Dupont’s plan reviewed and approved by EPA’s national scientific experts on mercury and USFWS scientists? Here’s why we need to know answers to those questions:

I)  Florio Lets the Liability Cat Out of the Bag

The residents of Pompton Lakes want the site designated and cleaned up by EPA under the Superfund program.

Thus far, their primary reasons for wanting Superfund instead of RCRA is that Superfund would bring more federal resources, a higher priority and visibility, and more community involvement in cleanup decisions.

But Jim Florio, Former NJ Governor and original sponsor of the 1980 Superfund law, just let the legal liability cat out of the bag.

The Superfund liability scheme adds another very good reason to use Superfund to compel Dupont to conduct a comprehensive and complete cleanup of the entire site, Pompton Lake, and downriver and compensate the public for huge natural resource and ecological damages they have caused (just like GE in the Hudson).

Florio went out of his way to emphasize that under Superfund, the legal liability scheme is known as “strict, joint, and several”.

Practically, what this legalese essentially means is that:

• Dupont is 100% on the hook for the ENTIRE problem
• EPA does not have to prove negligence  by Dupont
• EPA has enormous power to force Dupont to do a complete cleanup.

This is key because mercury pollution comes from multiple sources: coal power plants, garbage incinerators, and smelters and industrial sources.

Dupont is arguing that they are responsible ONLY for the mercury they allegedly contributed – and only via Acid Brook runoff, NOT THE TOTAL HISTORIC MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS FROM THE DUPONT PLANT AND ALL ON SITE DISPOSAL PRACTICES.

EPA has agreed to this bogus Dupont argument and that is why only a 6 inch deep small 26 acre portion of the 250 acre Lake (the “Acid Brook Delta”) sediments are being dredged.

Dupont could not get away with that under Superfund.

While it is true that EPA has less legal leverage under RCRA that Superfund, EPA still could do the right thing by forcing Dupont to scientifically establish how much mercury came from their facility and how much came from other sources.

But Dupont has not done any of that kind of work and EPA therefore has no scientific basis upon which to approve the plan. (and that’s just EPA’s problem #1)

II)  Dupont’s Science is Flawed and Can Not Be Approved BY EPA

EPA has done an enormous amount of scientific work on mercury.

In contrast with this rigorous EPA body of work, Dupont’s various regulatory documents rely on cursory and flawed science and assessment methods.

These flawed Dupont approaches provide the basis for the Dupont partial Acid Brook Delta cleanup plan and ecological assessment.

Dupont’s science and methods are inconsistent with, do not meet the rigorous standards of, and contradict EPA science. [Update: See

• EPA Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical Guidance
• EPA Region 8 Ecological Risk Characterization
• ASTM Method E1706 ]

As such, EPA can not approve of them by approving a cleanup plan based on them.

The primary EPA scientific sources for mercury, for our purposes are (there are lots others):

• EPA Report to Congress
• EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of Mercury Air Toxics Standard
• EPA Great lakes Mercury Initiative

(examples of additional studies of scientific and regulatory relevance are the

• NOAA Report to Congress on Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes
• various US Fish and Wildlife Service bird studies and fish studies and
• the 1996 Biological Opinion of the USFWS NJ Field Office
• NJ DEP’s 2002 proposed “wildlife criteria” SWQS for mercury
• EPA’s letter of support of the NJ DEP proposed SWQS wildlife criteria

Compared with the EPA Recommendations to Congress on ecologically protective mercury fish tissue levels, fish in Pompton lakes contain 2 – 10 TIMES safe levels.

Depending on trophic level of the fish, the EPA finding is 0.077 ppm – 0.346 ppm.

According to DEP, the fish in Pompton Lake average 0.72 ug/g (ppm).

[Update: A May 6, 2008 DEP email to Dupont specifically addressed this issue:

in order to present a balanced comparison, DuPont shall compare the average concentrations of mercury in largemouth bass from Pompton Lake to the regional average of 0.46 ug/g mercury in largemouth bass and/or the statewide average (0.44 ug/g) in the Remedial Investigation Report.

Additionally, Dupont’s ecological risk analysis is flawed, as it relies too heavily on alleged no impacts on the benthic (bottom) macroinvertebrate community structure. Community structure is a poor indicator of bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and ecological risk that I haven’t seen used anywhere else. And even if you were looking at macro invertebrates, you would be doing so to consider food chain bioaccumulation, so you would look at tissue concentration of mercury, not community structure.

[Update: I may have misread the Dupont documents on this point – macro-invertibrate community structure is of relevance, and YOY fish are trophic indicator in food web design – see Mercury Cycling in Stream Ecosystems. 3. Trophic Dynamics and Methylmercury Bioaccumulation – Where Dupont draws misleading conclusion is with this assertion:

However, tissue concentrations measured in the delta in 2005 do not indicate an increased accumulation of mercury by chironomids and YOY fish tissue relative to the tissue data collected during the 1998 ecological investigation. – end update]

[Update 2 – Here is what I meant to say, as provided by DEP’s Ecological Evaluation Guidance says about limitations of macro invertebrate sampling:

Some limitations are that they do not identify the contaminant responsible for the observed toxicity, population impacts are not readily translated into contaminant remediation goals, and results are often confounded by variables not related to contaminant toxicity (predation, seasonal differences, physicochemical sediment characteristics, food availability).]

Similarly, Dupont sampled “young of year” (YOY) fish, which minimizes bioaccumulation as young fish haven’t lived long enough to bioaccumulate the mercury in the system.

Here are additional serious flaws in Dupont’s analysis:

1) I didn’t see anything in Dupont’s documents concerning terrestrial mammals

2) There was no data or discussion of the bird sampling – other than a cursory claim of low/no adverse impact on 4 of 5 bird species sampled. What bird species? What tissue (or egg shell) concentrations found? What adverse impacts were considered?

3) There was no discussion of biological mechanisms that convert mercury they propose to leave in the sediments into bioavailable forms.

4) There was no data provided or consideration given to Dupont’s historic use of mercury compounds in manufacture.

5) There was no data or estimate of Dupont’s mercury air emissions and how those emissions deposited locally.

6) There was no dating or chemical analysis of soil or sediment cores that would suggest historic patterns of mercury deposition.

7) The full extent of mercury deposition and off-site release from the Dupont facility has not be adequately characterized.

8) There was no valid characterization of “mercury background”.

[According to the USEPA, background refers to constituents that are not influenced by the discharges from a site, and is usually described as naturally occurring or anthropogenic (USEPA, 2002a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. “Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program.” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[ According to NJ DEP Ecological Evaluation Guidance:

Background area samples should be collected from an area outside the site’s potential influence and not in locations directly influenced by or in proximity to other obvious sources of contamination.

9) There was no data provided to support apportionment of mercury in the environment as Dupont alleges to minimize their cleanup obligations (i.e. Dupont share and other source share).

10) There was no data or estimate sof total mercury loading; mechanisms and estimates of methylation; fate/transport modeling; bioaccumulation mechanisms; and human and wildlife exposure and risk assessments from air emissions, contaminated soil, surface water runoff of mercury disposed on site.

I assume that some of this data and analysis were provided in the original ecological assessment submitted to NJ DEP in accordance with State cleanup regulations (and rubber stamped by DEP’s broken cleanup program).

[Full disclosure Update: in 1995, a former NJ Governor, with DEP’s help, was shown to misrepresent the science on mercury in fish tissue to downplay risks – when I disclosed this scheme, management retaliated and I was forced out of DEP as a whistle-blower. Hit that link for all the documentation.]

However, this is an EPA federal RCRA action that must be EPA approved. Accordingly,  all the documents must be made available to the public during the comment period. That has not been done in this case so EPA can not approve the Dupont plan based on documents and analyses that have not been made publicly available.

III)  EPA is Required to Consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service

RCRA regulations require EPA to consult with federal agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the RCRA permit process.

We advised EPA Regional Administrator Enck on November 17, 2011 that RCRA regulations include full federal partner review including, but not limited to, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, pursuant to regulation 40 CFR 124.10(c)(iii).

Certainly such consultation is required BEFORE EPA issues a “tentative approval” and proposes a draft RCRA permit for public comment.

Thus far, it appears that EPA has not complied with these consultation requirements prior to issuing the draft permit.

IV)  Dupont is Required to Comply with Clean Water Act Standards

The federal Clean Water Act applies to Dupont’s water pollution discharges.

The CWA also applies to the RCRA permit process, which must meet CWA requirements.

NJ DEP State surface water quality standards (SWQS) have been approved by EPA and are federally enforceable. They trigger enforceable requirements on pollution discharge that may “cause or contribute to” a violation of a SWQS.

NJ DEP SWQS designate Pompton Lake for recreational use (fishing, swimming,etc), aquatic life protections, and water supply.

The SWQS have policies and narrative and numeric standards that the RCRA permit and Dupont clean up must comply with.

The Dupont proposed cleanup plan provides no discussion or demonstration regarding compliance with the legally applicable and binding provisions of the CWA or NJ SWQS.

Accordingly, EPA can not approve the Dupont proposal as a final RCRA permit in the absence of this compliance demonstration.

EPA must stand by their own science. According to the EPA supported NJ DEP wildlife criteria proposal. According to the DEP SWQS proposal (which USFWS and EPA supported)::

“As part of the 1994 approval of the New Jersey SWQS triennial review process, the USEPA, in collaboration with the USFWS, indicated that the human health based criteria for PCBs were not protective of the threatened and endangered species bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. As a result, the Service prepared a Biological Opinion document in 1996 (Biological opinion on the effects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the state of New Jersey’s surface water quality standards on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey. 1996). The lack of wildlife criteria for DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs was a concern to the USFWS. DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative pollutants that are persistent in the environment, accumulate in biological tissues, and biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics, the concentration of these contaminants may increase as they are transferred up through various food chain levels. As a result, adverse impacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish-eating) organisms may arise from low surface water concentrations. The peregrine falcon is not a piscivorous species. However, it feeds on other piscivorous bird species. Therefore, biomagnification may be of even greater concern for the peregrine falcon.

The USEPA developed site-specific wildlife criteria for the Great Lakes based on a number of factors, including the toxicity of various pollutants and their tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify. In addition, the USEPA gathered and applied information about piscivorous wildlife endemic to the Great Lakes region in its derivation of water quality criteria. That effort resulted in the promulgation of numeric surface water concentrations designed to be protective of all avian and mammalian wildlife using Great Lakes waters. “

EPA must now stand by Regional Administrator Enck’s commitment and their own science and reject the Dupont proposal.

1) Dupont’s proposed cleanup of Acid Brook Delta is only partial – we demand that all mercury and all pollutants be completely and permanently cleaned up so that the Lake is fishable and swimmable as mandated by the federal Clean Water Act and NJ Water Pollution Control Act;

2) The original 1992 EPA issued RCRA permit must be enforced and has numerous loopholes that must be closed – all RCRA “SWMU’s” and off site releases which are sources of toxic soil, sediment, vapor, and groundwater contamination must be cleaned up under more aggressive schedules and obligations than those EPA unilaterally imposed in a “compliance schedule modification” on May 4, 2010 without public notice and comment;

3) Natural resource damages and toxic fish and wildlife impacts of Dupont’s pollution have not been assessed fully and must be assessed and the public fully compensated;

4) EPA must take enforcement action and collect fines such that vapor mitigation systems are immediately installed in all impacted homes.

The plume area may be larger than currently thought, when subsurface infrastructure migration is considered.

I’m still disgusted by last night’s EPA hearing in Pompton lakes (more on that later), but for now just want to pass on this important interview with Daniel Ellsberg,– the man behind the Pentagon papers – regarding Bradley Manning.

Here is the case for whisteblowing:

I would say that Bradley Manning took the same attitude I did, which was the willingness to take a personal risk in order to inform the public, in order to affect events and save lives. We’ve had a number of wars that would have been averted if we’d had a Bradley Manning, and preferably at a higher level, with access to this information. I think there wouldn’t have been an invasion and an aggression against Iraq; if people knew that this was a disastrous course, that would have averted the war if it was done before the war. Likewise, the escalation in Afghanistan was done in opposition of most of the president’s military and civilian advisers, and I think if they had brought out their own opinions to the public, preferably wtih documents, we wouldn’t have put out this extra 40,000 troops, and lives would have been saved on both sides. In both cases, we’ve benefited from memoirs and investigative journalism, such as from Bob Woodward and Sy Hersh, that shows how many people knew we were heading off a cliff, but they didn’t tell us at the time. They told Woodward or Hersh or otherwise years after it was too late to stop them. I think in almost every catastrophe you can think of—even natural ones like Hurricane Katrina—there were warnings beforehand about how inadequate the preparations were. People knew what would happen. In almost every case you look at—Fukushima in Japan would be another case—there were plenty of people able to give the warning but just didn’t do it loud enough. They may have given warnings internally, but when people were ignored, as they were in both those cases, they didn’t risk their jobs to go public….

My main point is we need more such decision-making, not less, and Obama’s efforts to assure we’ll have less truth-telling than before is frankly a death sentence to a lot of people in the world, Americans and others, because it’s a recipe for more disastrous policies like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan—and I would say what are you doing in Pakistan with the drone attacks?—that are disastrous and could be averted by more truth-telling. Frankly, it will always take courage to do that, to tell a truth against the wishes of a boss—which is the essence of whistle-blowing and is always going to be risky. It doesn’t always involve imprisonment, but just the prospect of losing your clearance, your career, very often your marriage or your children’s education, your standing and your peers is enough to keep people quiet about dangers and crimes. ….

People write about this as though it’s very obscure what his motives were. He’s really very explicit in the chat logs as to what his concern was. He saw torture, atrocities, corruption at all levels, and he felt the public should have this information. You need this information to make decisions. And he was prepared to pay the price. I see the same motives I had, and I admire him—he’s a hero of mine. And I certainly haven’t heard anything since then that diminishes my feeling about it.

Obviously, there are far more important things in life than a job.