WolfeNotes.com

Here’s the latest from Baldpate Mountain – we last wrote about that from the land of Green Fakers (a prescient tale in light of the debacle at Ringwood Manor SP – Historic Site).

The entire Mercer County Park was completely closed to the public today – for hunting.

The so called “deer management” program there is PR cover for a political deal cut with gun clubs and hunters that used the land for many years before it was acquired by Mercer County (with state taxpayer Green Acres dollars).

I’m no wildlife biologist, but I doubt that hunting in the Park can make a dent in the deer population in the area and prevent excessive browse. I suspect that, from a deer population control standpoint, hunting is an ineffective management tool.

Baldpate Mountain is surrounded on 3 sides by forested private lands of prime deer habitat that prohibit hunting. Any hunting related herd reductions in the park likely would be offset by migrating deer populations from surrounding lands.

No, this is about special privileges for hunters – not “deer management”.

But to hell with the efficacy of the hunt and whether it can reduce forest damage due to deer browse.

There are principles involved.

First of all, Baldpate is a public park purchased with Green Acres taxpayer dollars.

I’m offended that an entire public park can be closed to the public, while certain special interests can use public lands as a their own private playground.

Second, there is no reason to close the park to allow hunting on Saturdays. The park is closed to the public and open exclusively to hunters for 1 Saturday in November, 4 in December and 4 in January, and 2 in February.

For people who work during the week, that is an unacceptable restriction.

Total park closure for hunting are: November (2 days); December (18 days); January (16 days) and February (6 days). The park is closed more than half the months of December and January.

That’s way too much time dedicated exclusively for hunters, who represent a tiny fraction of Mercer County residents.

I hiked in the park today and was thrown out by the Park Ranger after about a 3 mile trek.

I entered through the trailhead at Washington Crossing State Park – no closure signs were posted there.

I walked for over an hour on trails through the woods. I noticed unusual litter (coffee cups) and wide gully damage to the trails from ATV’s, things I had never seen before at Baldpate.

As the trail entered the open area by the outbuildings, I noticed several pickup trucks and ATV’s. There was a lot more damage there from truck tires in the mud. I was pissed and was going to complain, when I noticed that the men were hunters with guns.

So, discretion being the better part of valor, I kept my mouth shut and walked by.

Shortly after, a Ranger arrived (I’ve never seen a Ranger in the Park, so he must be there protecting hunters).

He pulled up and told me the park was closed and that my dog must be on a leash. He warned me that it was dangerous to be in the woods because there were hunters active.

He asked where I entered the Park. I replied that I entered up by the Washington Corssing trailhead and that no closure signs were posted.

He told me I had to return the way I came – damn idiot!

If it was unsafe to be in the woods, why would he want me to go back in the woods?

So, I told him no, I would leave the park via the roads.

I told him about all the ATV and pickup truck damage I saw. I complained that if a hunter kills a deer, he should be required too drag it out of the woods. The hunters are a bunch of fat, lazy, pussies!

ATV’s should not be allowed – what’s next, helicopters and drones?

The Rocktown Maskot

[Update: 2/6/12 – Ed Meakem just sent me the EPA Acid Brook sampling report presented on 2/1/12 to the Fake CAG. Here were my initial thoughts:

• What is AOC 106? What contaminants are present there?
• The air and water mercury emissions from Dupont obviously impacted the entire area.
• The DEP Ecological screening criteria for mercury should be 1 ppm (derived by DEP science), not 2 ppm.
• DEP proposed a surface water water quality standard for mercury in 2003 – as directed by US FWS and approved by EPA – far lower than the freshwater chronic aquatic 0.77 ppb value reported.
• This wildlife standard was 0.00053 ppb for mercury – see this (page 7-10)
• For all the EPA letter of support, US FWS Biological Opinion upon which the DEP proposal was based, and DEP approval documents, see this. ~~~  end update

Surprise! Surprise!

The Bergen Record reports that new EPA data show that the Dupont polluted Acid Brook – previously certified as cleaned up by Dupont and NJ DEP –  is still polluted by lead, mercury, and TCE and that those pollutants are flowing into Pompton Lake, see:

• Contamination returns to brook at DuPont’s Pompton Lakes site

POMPTON LAKES – Tests reveal parts of the Acid Brook, which run through the former site of the DuPont explosives factory, have been recontaminated with toxic metals and chemicals, more than 15 years after the company and the federal government said the tributary was entirely cleaned.

[Update: 2/8/12 – Goundhog:

Denisa Superville at Bergen Record has a good story about why the soil testing bill and beefed up DEP regulatory oversight are necessary – another problem with PCB’s in the Park, see: More tests done on Closed Teaneck Park:

“This stuff happens again and again and again, and nobody is connecting the underlying dots,” Wolfe said. “Are there laws in place to do this, and who is responsible for enforcing them? The answer is there are laws in place, but the government is completely asleep at the wheel. And the towns are left holding the bag.” –

Update 2 – for those that like to get down in the weeds, here are some regulatory rocks to turn over at DEP, to wake the sleeping giant:

• waste classification guidance and various material Technical manuals
• universal waste
• recycling facility exemptions
• recycling for builders and demolition contractors
• class b recycling facilities and recycling enforcement

end update

Zambonis:

The first bill released under the leadership of the new Chair of the Assembly Environment Committee would regulate hockey rinks and Zamboni emissions (see A186).

Not exactly a major threat.

I was tempted to do a YESMEN stunt, and request the following amendments:

1) link it to DHSS School/Day care center indoor air program so as to be sure to get laxer standards than those set by DEP (DHSS set standards for children based on a 1 in 10,000 risk level, which is 100 times weaker than DEP standards for healthy adult males, which are based on 1 in a million);

2) link the bill to DEP Vapor Intrusion indoor air program so as to be sure to guarantee that the program is voluntary, unenforceable, and based on private consultant’s judgment, not regulations and standards;

3) link the program to DEP’s Hazardous Air Emissions (HAP) program so as to assure inadequate monitoring and enforcement;

4) link the bill to the DEP environmental standards program to assure delay, as a result of the de facto moratorium on new standards declared by DEP Commissioner Martin

5) refer the bill to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute, which is the graveyard, as DEP Commissioner Martin has blocked any meetings (DWQI, which meets quarterly, has not met for over 18 months);

6) make the program implemented via a SIP amendment – this assures years of delay and no EPA oversight.

7) refer the bill to the DEP Science Advisory Board, which is dominated by industry representatives and a sure way to derail, delay, and weaken it.

II) Soil Testing (A1289)

This is a good bill that could avoid the kind of public outrage and avoidable health risks when contaminated soil is discovered at local parks, playgrounds, and schools across the state.

Yet the bill was opposed by the DEP and the League of Municipalities on narrow compliance cost grounds.

Why is DEP opposing efforts to supplement DEP efforts at the local level?

Why are local officials ignoring their constituents legitimate public health concerns?

III) Drugs in Drinking Water (A733)

This is a huge public health and ecological problem that the pharmaceutical industry is working hard to keep under the media radar screen and off the legislative and regulatory agenda. (see:

• USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program
• USGS Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and other Organic Wastewater Contaminants
• FILTER THE CHEMICAL SOUP IN NEW JERSEY’S DRINKING WATER — Available Treatments Could Screen Hundreds of Unregulated Compounds from Taps
• NY Times Series – Toxic Waters

Here is the band aid measure they are backing to do that:

BTW, the bill’s statement of purpose must be revised to reflect the data collected by the USGS National Water Quality Monitoring Program and the US EPA Unregulated Contaminants program.

It is definitely not good form to cite the Associated Press as a source.

IV) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI – A1998)

Now we arrive at groundhog day.

What is it about RGGI that brings out all the bullshit, from all sides?

It was so bad, I had to sign up to testify to call bullshit and rebut the fundamental misconceptions and just flat out errors.

Dave Pringle started things off by claiming RGGI involved issues of national security and reducing reliance on foreign oil imports.

Dave, RGGI applies only to the electric sector. NJ does not rely on oil to produce electricity (see the Energy Master Plan) so RGGI will have zero impact on foreign oil imports and national security (and yes, I’ve read the national security documents and am familiar with the national security concerns resulting from massive climate change impacts globally. But since RGGI has no impact on GHG emissions, again that legitimate concern is dismissed – see below).

Jeff Tittel was next and he did a good job in characterizing RGGI as a modest effort that produced jobs and funded low income residential energy efficiency.

But he seriously misspoke twice by claiming RGGGI reduced greenhouse gas emissions and was modeled on the Clean Air Act 1990 amendments establishing the SOx Acid Rain Program.

As DEP correctly testified last year, the current RGGI cap is 30% ABOVE current emissions, and thus RGGI would allow emissions to INCREASE, not be REDUCED.

So, it is false to claim that RGGI reduced GHG emissions or emissions of traditional pollutants and will do nothing to slow global warming or improve air quality.

RGGI is not a cap on emissions because it applies ONLY to the electric sector. Total GHG emissions could INCREASE if other sectors, like cars and buildings, increased emissions. RGGI does nothing about any of that.

The 1990 Acid Rain program was based on a legislative mandate for 50% SOx reductions over a 10 year period. Those reductions were enforced via state regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act. There was a true cap and legally mandated deep emissions reductions over an enforceable timetable implemented via State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and facility permits.

None of that is true for RGGI.

RGGI is based on an electric sector, has no cap, is implemented via an auction program, and is not mandatory reductions over time or implemented in clean air act regulatory programs.

I addition to calling bullshit on my ENGO colleagues’ spin and falsehoods, we also called out lies by the NJ Business and Industry Association, Chamber of Commerce, and Chemistry Council.

Those groups tried to argue that RGGI should not be restored because it has no impact on and is undermined by “leakage”, or emissions from neighboring states, like Pennsylvania power plants. The argued that there should be a narrational program for this global problem.

So, I called BS and advised the Committee that all those groups lobby in Washington DC to block:

• US support of international Climate Change treaties, like Kyoto
• updating National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone
• directly regulating GHG emissions
• inter-state emissions (Haze rule)
• mercury emissions from power plants

So it is complete hypocrisy to oppose NJ state level programs for failure of national efforts, when they are responsible for blocking national and international efforts.

And the flat out egregious lie by the NJ Chemistry Council that RGGI killed 27,000 chemical industry jobs is so facially false is unworthy of rebuttal.

Shame on all bullshitters in Trenton.

Premature to Expect Redevelopment When Full Cleanup Is Years Away

[Update: 2/3/12 below

It seems like whenever I go looking for trouble, I manage to find it.

Last summer, I testified at the public hearing on the Riegel Paper Superfund site up the Delaware River from me. I raised a series of concerns about EPA’s proposed final cleanup there, and issues with nearby Riegel paper sites (see: EPA Crown Vantage Landfill Superund Site Cleanup Plan Proposed

In followup, EPA promised – but failed – to email me the final EPA Record of Decision documents, response to my comments, and future public notices.

So, always suspicious when I get blown off by the bureaucracy, I decided yesterday to visit the related nearby Curtis Specialty Paper Superfund site and do some document reviews today.

Surprise surprise! It seems I just came across another cascading series of either errors or attempts to hide important information.

First of all, the EPA webpage for the Curtis Specialty Superfund site in Milford NJ does not include links to any remedial documents that would provide information regarding the pollution problems and risks at the site.

Second, the NPL Superfund listing public notice link that is provided on the EPA webpage is incorrect. So it is not easy to find the basis for the NPL listing. I had to Google to find it, and came across this sketchy NPL Site Narrative and rationale (which is not linked on the main EPA page for Curtis Specialty):

Need for NPL Listing:

The State of New Jersey referred the site to EPA. Other federal and state programs were evaluated but are not viable at this time. The State has written a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.]

So, having no clue what a “subsequent Federal Register Notice” is, we moseyed on over to the February 11, 1991 Federal Register cited.

Here is what I am looking for:

The Headquarters Superfund docket contains:

• HRS scoresheets for each proposed site;
• a documentation record for each site describing the information used to compute the HRS score;
• information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and
• a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.

But we found none of that or anything specific about Curtis Specialty site or the EPA Superfund listing documents. We found EPA reference to a 1991 Fed Reg. notice odd, because the CS cite wasn’t abandoned until 2003.

Third, while we found nothing on pollution, we did find all the good news, including a  September 23, 2009 press release announcing Superfund listing of the site, where EPA set the tone and shaped local expectations:

We have already addressed the most immediate threats at this site and secured it to prevent access and further deterioration, said Acting Regional Administrator George Pavlou. Now it is time to take a close look at what might be needed to protect the surrounding community into the future. By listing this site, we can move forward on a further investigation of additional threats that the site may pose over the long-term.

I really can’t comprehend how EPA could imply that the major problems are solved and allow local folks to form expectations that redevelopment is remotely on the horizon, when the facts of the site are troubling and the Superfund process takes years.

EPA doesn’t even have the RP’s legally on the hook for cleanup and the extent of cleanup is not clear (RI underway), but it could include costly and complex investigation of the groundwater and the Delaware River and off site sediment removal.

Superfund cleanup likely will have a significant impact on the feasibility of any future redevelopment.

So people need to focus on putting the public health horse (i.e. a permanent cleanup to residential standards that is protective of and compensates for damages to stream and river natural resources) before the redevelopment cart –

EPA did flag problems:

EPA’s future investigations will center on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the main contaminant of concern at the site. PCBs have been detected in soil at the site and along the banks of Quequacommisacong Creek. PCBs have also been found in pipes that discharge from the site to Quequacommisacong Creek and in the creek. PCBs are probable human carcinogens, which may also have serious effects on the immune, neurological and reproductive systems. The creek is a fishery, and feeds into the Delaware River, which is adjacent to the site. The Delaware River is a major fishery, and there are many sensitive environments, such as wetlands and habitats for endangered species in the vicinity.

Here’s what the Quequacommisacong Creek looks like today, about 200 feet from confluence with the designated Wild and Scenic Delaware River – there are posted warning signs and police tape, but no fences and it sure doesn’t look like any cleanup has occurred there:

[Update: I don’t want to create the misimpression that EPA screwed up this site.

DEP asked EPA to get involved and to list the site under Superfund.

Specialty Paper was required to cleanup the site under NJ State laws immediately after it shut down operations.

DEP failed to enforce NJ State cleanup laws at the site: (or file liens for cleanup costs):

In August 2001, Curtis Specialty Papers submitted a preliminary assessment report and remedial investigation work plan to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as part of the State’s Industrial Site Recovery Act. The company identified 20 areas of concern at the Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. site. In July 2003, Curtis Specialty Papers shut down its operations and declared bankruptcy. The facility was abandoned and left unsecured. On October 20, 2006, NJDEP and their emergency response contractor began activities that included securing oil and hazardous materials containers, classifying materials for waste disposal, inspecting above ground storage tanks, collecting and stowing empty containers at the former hazardous materials storage area, and transporting and disposing of materials. Approximately two dozen drums and lab packs were removed from the facility.

Additionally, there could be problems related to a legal settlement with Crown Vantage– I am still trying to understand the ownership structure, it is possible that Crown purchased the liability of a subsidiary Specialty Paper, the RP at the site.

An EPA consultant’s Report traces the ownership history

Bingo!

A prior 2001 DEP settlement with Crown Vantage and $1 million settlement may explain DEP inaction at the Curtis Specialty Paper site.

Check this out – focus on highlighted text – “any and all property”. According to a recent Appellate Division decision:

Approximately six years after Crown purchased the landfill, it filed for bankruptcy protection in the Northern District of California. As part of those bankruptcy proceedings, it filed a motion under 11 U.S.C.A. § 554 to abandon its interest in this landfill, as well as several others that it owned and operated. The DEP objected to this abandonment because of the potential risks to the environment posed by abandoned landfills. To secure the DEP’s agreement to this motion, Crown agreed to pay $1 million to the DEP to be used “to investigate, close, clean-up, or otherwise remediate any environmental condition on any and all property” of Crown in New Jersey. Based upon this payment, the DEP withdrew its objection to the motion, and the bankruptcy court entered an order on March 2, 2001, authorizing the abandonment of this property. The order entered by the bankruptcy court simply referred to abandoning the property and did not mention the 1991 agreement that structured the manner in which the landfill was to operate, nor did it convey title to the underlying land.

Following entry of that order, the DEP used a majority of the funds from Crown to close up another of Crown’s landfills that it considered to require immediate attention. The DEP did no more with the Warren Glen landfill than to periodically visit it and to mow the grass to keep it from becoming overgrown.

So, what explains DEP failures and the EPA Superfund listing?

Were the DEP’s hands tied by a sweetheart $1 million bankruptcy settlement?

Did DEP try to cover their mistake by asking EPA for a Superfund cleanup?

Did EPA play right along with that game?

Are RP’s wiggling off the hook? – end update]

EPA consultants reinforced these unrealistic expectations in a July 2010 Report:

Reuse Assessment Report (July 2010)

The Reuse Assessment provides information to develop a realistic understanding of reasonably anticipated future use of the site. It considers information related to land use and planning, such as property ownership, physical constraints, zoning and local ordinance, regulatory constraints, and community input. In the end, this Reuse Assessment presents an understanding of potential future use, which can be used to inform the Superfund process to ensure protection of human health and the environment.[…

The USEPA named IP and GP as responsible parties associated with the site, and on June 4, 2009, IP and GP entered into an AOC with the USEPA to perform an RI/FS at the site. [Note: RI/FS is study, not cleanup]. IP and GP subsequently purchased the site in June 2009. IP, GP, and USEPA amended the AOC on November 8, 2010 to include pre-demolition activities at the site. [ Note: again, this is not complete cleanup].

Take a look at the redevelopment potential there – hardly “shovel ready”:

Monday’s Hunterdon County Democrat story repeats these wildly unrealistic expectation of site redevelopment and reuse: Milford citizens group meets tonight too discuss Riegel Paper Mill site needs, nice cleanup ends

Organizer Rob Castagna and wife Linda own Chestnut Hill Bed and Breakfast and have some ideas they’d like to advance. “The big question we have is: What’s next? What happens when the property is all cleaned out and there’s nothing left?”

I don’t know what EPA or local officials and residents are thinking about, but does this site look like there is no “further deterioration” and that it is time for redevelopment planning?

The EPA consultants are preparing a RI/FS.

EPA does not have a binding commitment from the polluters to cleanup the site, but merely to study it.

So take a look at all the progress – and see what it looks like from the front yards of nearby residents: