WolfeNotes.com

Chair of Roma Bank Board Named Assistant Commissioner for Water

[Update 2/13/12 – Siekerka gets hammered in this Trenton Times story

Update: 2/12/12 – an absolutely kick ass Star Ledger editorial today highlights the points we’ve repeatedly made here countless times about Gov. Christie’s State Plan, Red Tape initiative, and DEP regulatory assaults.

And the fact that they put “red tape” in quotes shows they agree with our assessment that the term is an empty demagogic slogan: Gov. Chris Christie’s war on “red tape” puts NJ environment at risk” –

We’d also note that Siekerka was the DEP point person for rolling back DEP regulations to conform to the Christie economic development plan. end updates]

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin announced another Friday afternoon shakeup in his management team.

Gone is John Plonski as Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources Management. Plonski, a former Pennsylvania regulator, was the only experienced professional regulator that Bob Martin recruited to the DEP Management team.

Plonski will be replaced by Michele Siekerka, former head of Martin’s new economic growth promotion office, with the Orwellian name Economic Growth and Green Energy (EGGE).

Siekerka is also Chairman of the Board of Roma Bank – the first time I ever recall a banker and DEP Manager holding two positions at the same time!

Siekerka’s promotion to a regulatory role raises potential serious conflicts of interest with her Roma Bank clients. Let’s hope there already is a detailed recusal statement filed with DEP Ethics Officer Cathy Tormey

Prior to the Bank job, Siekerka served as Chief Executive Officer of the Mercer County Chamber of Commerce.

Banking and Chamber of Commerce advocacy are excellent qualification’s for Governor Christie’s DEP.

Christie and DEP Commissioner Martin have radically reoriented DEP’s mission to include promotion of economic development. (listen to her promote Christie’s economic growth plan replacement for the State Development and Redevelopment Plan).

Like Commisisoner Martin, Sierkerka has no environmental training or experience, instead only private sector business advocacy. Obviously, those qualifications conflict with a regulator’s job.

As head of the EGGE Office, Siekerka failed to even name a manger of the Office of Climate Change – that manager still vacant. But, while ignoring climate change, Siekerka does find time for “power breakfasts” with business groups to discuss regulatory rollback.

Replacing Siekerka at EGGE, which is renamed SAGE (Sustainability and Green Energy) is Bob Marshall from the Governor’s Office.

Marshall served as Assistant Counsel to Governor Christie for matters involving the environment, energy and agriculture. He served previously in the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety as Deputy Attorney General, where he handled DEP, Treasury, and Agriculture matters.

The Plonski Legacy on Water

John Plonski’s legacy is not something to be proud of.

His departure again raises the question of where the frack is the Water Supply Master Plan Update. Plonski failed to stand up to the “Red Tape” assault by Lt. Gov. Guadagno. He presided over the dissolution of the Division of Watershed management and also oversaw turmoil and the end of meetings of the Drinking Water Quality Institute, including a freeze on numerous water standards. Plonski was caught in an embarrassing lie about failure to regulate perchlorate, ignored radiological risk to NJ water supply and refused to regulated hundreds of chemicals in drinking water. He represented Governor Christie on the DRBC and caused controversy there promoting fracking (dubbed blackmail). He also managed the Christie failed Barnegat Bay plan, oversaw the surrender to Exelon on the Oyster Creek nuke plant cooling tower permit reversal, and led various media stunts, like the Barnegat Bay Blitz.

Actually, I can’t think of a single Plonski accomplishment!

Oil Industry Uses Obama’s Energy Policy To Oppose Fracking Ban

In the last week, I testified on 3 important bills.

Each time, I have been closer to (or in agreement with) Governor Christie (on RGGI), and oil, gas, and chemical industry lobbyists (fracking ban – Sunoco Sweeney Shakedown) than with my environmental colleagues.

Today, I took the same position in opposition to a bill as Hal Bozarth, a man I’ve described as “The Godfather of NJ Toxics”.

That sickens me. (and I’ve severely criticized Dave Pringle of NJEF for that!)

But I can assure you that I have not changed my views and remain on the side of the green angels. So, here’s the quick, dirty, and sad story:

I) Symbolic Fracking Ban ignores real threats to NJ waters

In a January 27 post, I asked where was the outrage in the environmental community about President Obama’s pro-fossil energy policy statement in the SOTU Address:

Obama’s State of the Union address BRAGGED about expanding oil and gas production and yesterday Obama announced 21 million acres of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases. From the SOTU:

“Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

Where is the ENGO outrage over that?

Could you imagine the condemnations if a Republican President had made that same statement?

[Update: You don’t have to use your imagination – here is a typical example on Bush/Cheney energy policy:

Natural Gas

Natural gas was connected in high places too.

When the Energy Department drafted a chapter for the report about how to increase domestic energy production, the text mentioned the importance of hydraulic fracturing, a method of accelerating production of natural gas wells. It so happens that Halliburton is a major provider of the service.[…]

EPA officials balked at suggesting any actions for the task force before the study was completed. The subject disappeared from the agenda by the day of the meeting.

But it didn’t disappear from the final report. The document emphasized the technique’s importance as “one of the fastest-growing sources of gas production” and noted that “each year nearly 25,000 oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured.” The information about potential water well contamination, the appeals court decision and the possibility of EPA controls had all been dropped.

A few paragraphs after the hydraulic fracturing discussion comes the task force recommendation that the nation “promote enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing wells through new technology.”

Yet the silence in criticizing Obama is deafening.

But today in Trenton, that Obama policy came home to roost.

Jim Benton, head of the NJ Petroleum Council, didn’t miss the Obama SOTU.

Benton began his testimony opposing a fracking ban bill by strongly supporting President Obama’s energy policy – particularly Obama’ support of expansion in domestic natural gas production – to attack proposed legislation to ban fracking in NJ.

Benton called NJ’s response to fracking “isolationist” and out of step with national policy.

Benton correctly noted that any NJ gas in the Utica shale is very unlikely to be economically recoverable, especially when there are huge cheap deposits right next door in the Marcellus deposit. Any NJ fracking would be decades away.

But enviro’s (and the bill sponsor, Senator Gordon) hyped these Utica shale drilling risk.

Meanwhile, a parade of environmentalists testified about every fracking related issue under the sun, with the exception of the Obama SOTU pro-gas policy and the immediate threats to NJ from fracking.

Enviro’s simply ignored the real, immediate risks of fracking – which come from importation of fracking wastewater and the upcoming DRBC regulations – in order to declare victory on a meaningless fracking ban bill.

Of course, Democrats love this political cover, which provides praise for appearing to be protecting NJ’s water resources from fracking.

Meanwhile, far more important legislation to ban treatment and disposal of fracking wastewater (A575 and S253) is ignored and efforts to block Governor Christie’s support of DRBC fracking regulations has been abandoned (bills were introduced in each House last session to set NJ’s DRBC policy, but have not been reintroduced this session).

How is it possible to support a Legislative BAN on fracking but not restrictions on wastewater [treatment and disposal] imports and [continuation of DRBC moratorium] stronger DRBC restrictions?

Why not link these bills?

I call bullshit on that.

II) Sweeney Sunoco Shakedown

Sunoco has shut down their heavily polluted refinery on the Delaware River in West Deptford, laid off hundreds of workers, failed to cleanup the toxic site, and sued the town successfully for some $20 million in property tax appeal rebates.

I can hardly imagine a greater corporate outrage.

But as bad as that is, it doesn’t justify using environmental laws to shake down Sunoco in tax appeal negotiations, under the guise of cleaning up the site.

Do any other environmentalist groups resent using environmental laws as political pawns and shakedowns? [And using DEP as a legislator’s personal attack dog.

Sweeney’s bill is about as legitimate as the mobster who stops by a store owner to advise that it would be a shame if the place burned down, while sticking his hand out for a monthly “fire insurance” payment].

This is the kind of crap that discredits us all.

But again, the silence was deafening.

Senate President Sweeney has gotten a lot of favorable local press coverage for his bill, which would direct any tax appeal rebate money to a special DEP account to assure prompt cleanup of the site. (see: Sweeney: Sunoco’s Eagle Point must clean up before tax rebates are paid up

Sunoco site cleanup will cost more than 10 times that $20 million tax rebate.

[And Sweeney has long ignored Sunoco pollution and DEP’s failure to enforce cleanup laws, wile providing subsidies to Sunoco, which a Star Ledger editorial slammed on 12/30/07:

“The proposed RGGI law being rushed through Trenton’s lame-duck legislative session reflects a miserable New Jersey political tradition. Every special interest imaginable has reached in to grab a share of the money or other benefits.”]

And there are hundreds of similar sites in NJ where corporate polluters are not in compliance with federal and state financial assurance and cleanup requirements designed to prevent exactly the abuse that Sunoco is engaged in – i.e. close the facility, but avoid cleanup, block any redevelopment opportunity, and shift pollution risks and cleanup burdens to taxpayers.

So, I urged the Senate Environment Committee to conduct legislative oversight of the DEP RCRA Corrective Action and Financial Assurance programs, which impacts hundreds of sites across the state – instead of using environmental laws in a political tax appeal negotiation. Per EPA rules:

All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post-closure care of their facilities. They also must demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up of any accidental releases of hazardous constituents during the active life of their facilities, and compensate any third parties for any resulting bodily injury or property damage.

Plus, if DEP has been unwilling – for political reasons – to force corporate polluters to pony up millions of dollars in financial assurance for cleanup costs and to actually cleanup sites, what on earth makes you think they would enforce similar requirements on the public sector, e.g. West Deptford and Gloucester County, as required under the Sweeney bill?

Do you think DEP would ever go after West Deptford and Gloucester County for failure to pay? Of course not – that payment will never be made and the site will never be cleaned up.

The bill is nothing more than a shield in a tax appeal case – it has nothing to do with protecting the environment and cleaning up a toxic site.

Meanwhile, actual current laws to require that Suncoco -nand hundreds of other corporate polluters – demonstrate financial aasurace for 100% of cleanup costs are ignored and go unenforced.

So, I had to agree with Hal Bozarth and oppose the bill as a cynical political ploy.

[Update: here is Senate Dems spin – as suspected, note how it leads with a big lie. The bill would do NOTHING to “ensure the cleanup of environmentally contaminated sites”. If they wanted to do that, the bill would mandate cleanup – it does not:

TRENTON – Legislation sponsored by Senate President Steve Sweeney that would ensure the clean up of environmentally contaminated sites in New Jersey cleared the Senate Environment and Energy Committee today. The Senate President announced his intention to sponsor the legislation last month in front of the shuttered Sunoco Coastal Eagle Point Refinery in West Deptford.]

III) Pulling punches on RGGI

I’ve already written about why I agree with some of Governor Christie’s criticisms that RGGI does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But again, environmentalists ignore all that and support a totally ineffective RGGI bill.

Why not demand that Democrats pass a real greenhouse gas reduction bill or reform RGGI so that at least the cap is reduced?

Why set the bar so low?

Members and funders of environmental groups really need to start asking for more.

The transcript of the January 5, 2012 public hearing on the Dupont RCRA permit modification for the Acid Brook Delta mercury sediment removal project is now available, see this link)

Because public testimony (Lois Gibbs and several residents) and my testimony (page 18-32) kicked ass, raised many issues of concern for followup, and could be helpful to residents trying to hold Dupont, DEP and EPA accountable, I will try to print it below verbatim.

Sorry, I can’t seem to format it here, so hit the link and read the transcript.

It was a damn good public hearing and I can’t wait to see how EPA responds to the multitude of valid public comment they got!

Protesters Hold “2012 Fracky Award Ceremony”

The day before legislation to ban fracking in NJ will be re-heard by the Senate Environment Committee (see S246), a coalition of environmental groups held  a stunt outside the Trenton Marriot  entitled “The 2012 Fracky Awards”.

The anti-fracking Coalition representatives attending the event included Food and Water Watch, Sierra Club, and Delaware Riverkeeper (Dave Pringle of NJEF was on the press release but failed to show up).

The Fracky Awards upstaged a similar stunt held inside a Marriot conference room by the American Petroleum Institute. The API event touted the oil and gas industry’s voluntary “Best Practices” (see below for more).

2012 Fracky Nominees included:

1) NJ Governor Chris Christie, for Conditionally vetoing last year’s fracking ban legislation; across the board support for fracking in the Energy Master Plan, gas pipeline subsidies and regulatory approvals; and support of pro-fracking DRBC regulations (and for telling protesters to frack off!)

2) El Paso Gas Pipeline Company, parent company of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company for building environmentally destructive and dangerous gas pipelines through NJ’s most environmentally sensitive lands, including the Delaware Water Gap, Walkill National Wildlife Refuge, Pequannock watershed, and drilling under Monksville Reservoir;

3) Cabot Oil & Gas, for polluting water supplies in Dimock Pennsylvania and elsewhere;

4) Congressman Andy Harris for the arrest of noted documentary filmmaker Josh Fox for attempting to film a Congressional hearing on fracking; and

5) the American Petroleum Institue (API), for all around excellence in propaganda and corrupt lobbying practices.

The 2012 Fracky award went to API.

But API simultaneously was holding their own event inside the Marriot.

API was a graceful host. The event was open and their experts answered a questions I posed regarding the industry’s position with respect to how their voluntary, more costly, and environmentally protective Best Practices applied in cases where state and local regulations were weaker.

Of course, I got an honest – if impolitic – answer: the gas drillers will get away with whatever they can,  meet minimum legal local requirements, and maximize profits, Best Practices Be Damned.

I will write about tomorrow’s fracking ban legislation and the API Best Practices presentations in a separate post – below are photos:

EPA Violates Its Own Policy and Agrees with Dupont

[Update: 2/7/12: Josh Fox got a lot of mileage from the scene in his movie “Gasland”, where the tap water explodes.

But that’s chump change compared to the situation at the Dupont Pompton Lakes facility – Watch the Youtube!.

For over 90 years, Dupont manufactured millions of tons of explosives, using mercury fulminate. In addition to the air and water discharges of mercury from manufacturing operations, Dupont exploded tons of surplus or off spec explosives in a small “shooting pond” and burned high level hazardous waste with no emissions controls in two open burning areas.

Take a look at how mercury fulminate behaves – and think of all the mercury dispersed across the Dupont site and surrounding areas; Watch the Youtube and eat your heart out Josh Fox!  ~~- end update]

The Bergen Record today finally wrote the story on the Dupont Acid Brook Delta cleanup plan (see: Cleanup may put wildlife at risk)

That could be the worst headline I’ve ever read – it is Dupont’s mercury emissions that “put wildlife at risk”, not the cleanup!

But aside from the horrible headline, the story itself is pretty good – that’s a self compliment, as we pitched the entire story, soup to nuts, and spent hours briefing reporter Jim O’Neill and providing all the various Dupont and DEP documents (see: DUPONT POMPTON LAKE POLLUTION MAY BE HEADED DOWNSTREAM — DEP Scientists’ Questions Could Prompt Feds to Expand DuPont Cleanup Scope

But you wouldn’t know any of that from reading the story, which makes it appear like all we did was post documents that Ed Meakem previously had been given under OPRA.

While noting the Meakem OPRA, I find it curious that the story fails to note that DEP denied me access to these same scientific documents under the state Open Public Records Act, claiming they were “deliberative”, despite the fact that DEP previously had released these same documents to Ed. The fact that DEP selectively hid the documents from me ought too tell you something about the lack of integrity at DEP.

I must note that the story left out a key point: DEP scientists found that Dupont’s science was “misleading” regarding fish tissue mercury concentrations. The fish tissue concentrations in Pompton Lake and downriver are the lynchpin to the whole argument about Dupont’s mercury emissions as the source.

To his credit, reporter Jim ONeill clearly understood and nailed that issue:

A state scientist expressed alarm about elevated mercury levels in fish downstream from the lake in a May 2008 internal email and named DuPont as the likely source. “It is clear that fish in Pompton Lake are elevated in mercury relative to the rest of the watershed,” wrote Gary Buchanan, chief of the state Department of Environmental Protection’s natural resources science bureau.

“All the weight of evidence points to the Acid Brook Delta mercury (i.e., DuPont) as the source of elevated mercury in the fish,” Buchanan wrote. “Of particular note is the elevated levels of mercury in fish directly downstream of Pompton Lake. This raises a flag about downstream transport of mercury.”

Dupont explicitly restricted the scope of the cleanup to just 26 acres of the Acid Brook Delta and expressly refused to consider downriver sediments and impacts, so that “flag about downstream transport of mercury” finding is HUGE.

The fact that fish tissue mercury concentrations are significantly higher in Pompton Lake and downriver than the surrounding region is the smoking gun that points to Dupont as the cause of the problem.

Dupont tried to misrepresent that critical data and the DEP called them on it.

That is HUGELY SIGNIFICANT.

One other point warrants followup is the issue of “background” mercury levels.

I was extremely disturbed by this EPA statement, which agrees with Dupont’s misrepresentations about the “background” levels of mercury:

“The removal of the sediments from the delta will capture nearly all of the mercury contamination that can be directly attributed to DuPont’s discharge,” said DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese.

Ariel Iglesias, the EPA’s regional deputy director of environmental protection and planning, agreed. “The rest of the lake’s mercury concentrations are more representative of background concentrations, even above the lake,” Iglesias said.

That is bullshit, my friends.

And as I previously wrote, EPA’s Iglesias’s statement contradicts EPA’s own Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Guidance on how to derive “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.

NJ DEP takes the same scientific position on background.  According to NJ DEP’s 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.

The issue is such fundamental importance that I was compelled to write EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck and US FWS the following letter:

Dear Administrator Enck:

Last week, I conducted a file review of the Dupont RCRA issues at the NJ DEP RCRA Enforcement field office.

Please be advised that I saw records that Dupont had two “open burning areas” – 500 lbs of mercury and lead containing hazardous waster per day were permitted to be “cooked” there, with no emission controls.

Other significant mercury sources include the shooting pond (a RCRA regulated land disposal unit) and local air and water emissions from manufacturing operations.

Dupont, NJ DEP, and EPA claims about mercury “background” levels have no supporting data, no scientific basis, and are inconsistent with EPA’s own definition and OSWER Guidance on how to derive “background” levels.

Specifically, 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.”

EPA’s statements on mercury background do no reflect the mercury data for the emissions I just summarized above.

Dupont has not provided data on the age of sediments or speciated metals within the sediments to provide some indication of historical background and deposition.

With all that in mind, I take strongest exception to this EPA statement from today’s Bergen Record:

“The removal of the sediments from the delta will capture nearly all of the mercury contamination that can be directly attributed to DuPont’s discharge,” said DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese.

Ariel Iglesias, the EPA’s regional deputy director of environmental protection and planning, agreed.“The rest of the lake’s mercury concentrations are more representative of background concentrations, even above the lake,” Iglesias said.”

We expect better science from EPA and now look to US FWS to correctly analyze this issue.

Bill Wolfe