Your Orwell Today: Christie DEP Calls Privatization of Toxic Site Cleanup Program “Self-Implementation”

Chairman Smith Blocks Environmental Testimony on Chemical Industry Bill

Hypocrisy is High for the Holidays

The chemical industry wins another war, while the public interest dies

A quiet, humble, and apolitical man by nature, he practiced the now seemingly lost art of listening respectfully to friends and foes alike … his ability to treat even unreasonable people with the utmost respect have all contributed to the civility of our discourse, and ultimately, the wisdom of our decisions on environmental policies that protect all citizens of New Jersey. ~~~ Mike Catania, Eulogy for Richard Sullivan

Work with me here, as I connect the dots on today’s Trenton lows. Sorry, but you have to wade through some contextual bullshit before getting to the content.

Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith began today’s hearing with a Senate Resolution 131, commemorating the life of Richard Sullivan. He then took the unusual step to read Mike Catania’s entire NJ Spotlight eulogy into the record.

Here’s how I feel about the etiquette of so called “politicization” of the death of public figures, summed up by Glenn Greenwald:

This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure’s death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. “Respecting the grief” of Thatcher’s family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person’s life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won’t repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren’t silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person’s death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.” Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

Mike Catania, who eulogized Sullivan in a way that I feel whitewashed and propagandized,  has taken strong exception to what he views as my politicization of Sullivan’s death (see: What Would Richard Sullivan Have Done?)

In reply to comments I made on Catania’s eulogy in NJ Spotlight, which questioned how Sullivan’s legacy could be squared with current policies and controversies, Catania wrote:

Bill – I have made it a point never to respond to a comment on one of my columns, but I have absolutely no intention of allowing you to politicize Richard’s passing and use it for your own purposes. … It is time for you to get a hobby, dude, so that you do not need to spend 24 hours a day telling the world how they should think and act…

Get a hobby dude? That comports with my critique based on the work of Niebuhr?

While Catania attacks me for “politicization” through commenting on his NJ Spotlight Op-Ed, Mike apparently has no problem with a politician “politicizing Richard’s passing”. And he also has no problem with DEP Commissioner Martin – who is the antithesis of the trained professional that Sullivan was and is in the process of dismantling Sullivan’s legacy – with politicizing it either.

But more importantly, Catania can’t see the contradiction and hypocrisy of praising Sullivan for “listening respectfully to foes” and  treating “even unreasonable people” “with respect“, with his open disdain for the thoughts of his readers (i.e. acknowledging that he does not respond to reader comments) and engaging in a full throated fact free ad hominem attack on a thoughtful critic.

I guess that tolerance, respect, and listening applies to everyone except those that criticize Mike’s hypocrisy.

Chairman Bob Smith seems to have a case of the Catania contradictions as well.

Smith began his hearing with Catania’s eulogy, a view he concurred with.

Yet, moments later, in an unprecedented move in my memory, he blocked me from testifying on a chemical industry bill to extend deadlines under the controversial 2009 “Site Remediation Reform Act” (SRRA), which privatized the cleanup of toxic waste sites in NJ (for my analysis of that bill, see: Lame Duck Alert: Polluters Seek Rollback of Key Deadline In Privatized Toxic Site Cleanup Law).

Smith was not present when that bill (S3075)was heard for discussion only on Dec. 5.

After missing the discussion on his own bill, Smith then posted the bill for a hearing last thursday (12/12). But, he unexpectedly held the bill – without taking testimony – allegedly because he claimed that DEP needed to testify.

So DEP showed up today to testify on why the extension in Smith’s bill was justified and to provide a briefing on the status of implementation of SRRA.

DEP wins today’s Orwell for calling SRRA privatization of cleanup “self implementation”.

But DEP also blew a lot of diversionary and misleading smoke to obscure several important issues about exactly how the SRRA was performing, how many sites were being cleaned up, and why the extension of the May 2104 deadline in Smith’s bill was justified.

The biggest misleading data was DEP’s grouping of very simple, cheap, low risk, underground storage tank removals with real cleanups.

DEP can get away with this bullshit because they do not collect and report the data in disagregated form and DEP has failed to developed the legislatively mandated “Risk Priority System” to rank sites by risk.

That DEP spin cried out for rebuttal.

I signed up to testify on the bill, but when that time came, Smith would not allow me to speak.

I objected from the audience, based on the fact that DEP had put new facts on the record and the alleged justification for the bill had entirely shifted.

The original bill, as I wrote Senator Smith on Dec. 12, justified the extension from the May 2014 deadline on 4 very specific and limited grounds:

Dear Chairman Smith and Senator Bateman:

Last week, I testified in opposition to your bill, S3075, primarily because it contradicts the private sector’s promises to expedite the pace of cleanup under the SRRA and fails to address other key flaws in SRRA, including the failure of DEP to adopt  the “Remedial Priority System” mandated by SRRA and failure to enforce other deadlines in SRRA, such as the mandate to secure an LSRP.

Industry representatives offered 4 justifications for the bill:

1) inability to secure off site access to conduct sampling;

2) co-mingled plumes and apportionment of liability;

3) litigation and other events beyond their control (force majeur); and

4) complex federal RCRA and CERCLA joint involvement.

Points #1 – #3 are valid reasons for delay. However, point #4 is false, because RCRA/CERCLA sites were carved out in SRRA.

DEP provided no testimony on the universe of cases impacted by the bill or the validity of the industry’s assertions.

While I remain opposed to the bill, I’d like to suggest narrowing and protective amendments to Section 1, in the event that the bill will be released today.

Amendments should restrict eligibility for the 2 year maximum extension to the justifications in points #1 – #3 above.

But instead of following my recommendation and limiting eligibility for the extension on demonstrating specific legitimate reasons for delay, Smith simply revised the justification for delay!

Today Smith said that the bill was justified for two completely different reasons totally unrelated to the prior justification:

1) Smith claimed that 3,500 of  the 4,300 sites that are not in compliance with the May 2014 deadline were making progress in cleanup, as evidenced by the fact that they has hired LSRP’s. Smith called these “the good guys”; and

2) Smith said that DEP oversight of these 3,500 “good guy” sites – who are not in compliance – would divert DEP resources from the 800 “bad guy” sites who also were not in compliance with the deadline  but had not even hired an LSRP!

On top of that shifting justification and the DEP smokescreen, there was a Senate Committee substitute bill that changed how the 2 year extension would be granted by DEP from a case by case justification and review/approval by DEP (simalar to getting a permit) to a private certification by the LSRP that the delay and non compliance was justified. So they privatized the compliance determination too.

So, we had up for consideration:

• a significantly revised substitute bill
• with a totally new justification, and
• a vote based on completely misleading DEP testimony on the table that demanded rebuttal.

And Senator Smith just shut that down – with no real questions for DEP and by blocking my testimony.

(thank goodness Senator Greenstein saw through the smokescreen and asked DEP good questions – which DEP hard no answers for!)

And Smith did so shortly after touting the legacy of Richard Sullivan.

No politics there – just massive Orwellian hypocrisy.

Happy Holidays!

The chemical industry wins another war, while the public interest dies.