The Star Ledger reports today – the second story actually – that EPA plans to announce a cleanup plan for the Passaic River on Monday.
‘Hotspots’ targeted in first phase of Passaic River cleanup
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/passaic_river_to_get_a_cleanup.html
Two Star Ledger set up stories and the details of the EPA plan have yet to emerge – Senator Lautenberg is praising the plan – yet how do we know that it’s a positive development???
My spin detector meter is pinned.
What happened to the NJ DEP cleanup plan announced a few years back because EPA was too slow and too soft on the big polluters? See:NEW JERSEY SUES THREE COMPANIES FOR DISCHARGING AND DELAYING CLEANUP OF HIGHLY TOXIC DIOXIN IN THE LOWER PASSAIC RIVER – Directs Companies to Fund Cleanup Plan for Most
Concentrated Areas of Dioxin Contamination in the River http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0134.htm
The pictures in the Ledger story also mislead readers. Very few places where DEP has issued fish and shellfish consumption advisories are actually posted with warning signs.
Similarly, many toxics sites are not fenced and posted with warning signs.
I smell a cover story to avoid criticism of NJ DEP walking away from their own state level Passaic River cleanup plan and litigation strategy. See:
Passaic River Cleanup Litigation
To pursue the cleanup of toxic dioxin contamination in the Newark Bay Complex, the Fiscal 2007 Budget will provide an amount sufficient to cover legal and expert services,investigative expenses, and other associated costs. For more than 20 years, Occidental Chemical and its predecessors knowingly discharged a highly toxic form of dioxin, pesticides, and other chemicals into the Passaic River from their Newark facility. The environmental and economic damage this pollution has inflicted on the state includes increased cancer risks from consuming blue claw crabs and higher costs to dredge the New York Harbor’s navigational channels.
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/07bib/pdf/bib.pdf
The timing of this is also very suspicious.
Both EPA and NJ DEP need good news to recover from the recent damning Report by the EPA Inspector General – a story than ran page one across NJ this week: see:
EPA REPORT BLASTS NEW JERSEY TOXIC CLEAN-UPS — State Failures to Enforce Law Lead to Worst Delays in the Country
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1068
By way of illustration: suppose newspapers covered a scathingly critical National report on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) failures on airline safety, and just a few days later the local FAA office announced a safety plan at Newark airport. Obviously, everyone would connect the dots and see the spin and manipulation.
Why that is not the case on this EPA “cleanup plan” is puzzling.
I have no details of the EPA plan, but here is a link to a local briefing on EPA cleanup Options:
http://www.ourpassaic.org/projectsites/premis_public/DM/index.cfm/2007-07-12%20Lower%20Passaic%20River%20Municipality%20Meeting%20Summary%20Final.pdf?fuseaction=GetDoc&DocId=8912
-
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
-
Meta
We’re only a matter of months away from when EPA has said it would release for public comment a draft cleanup plan to address a much larger portion of the river — including several miles both upstream and downstream of the so-called “hotspot” area Tierra has agreed to dredge. The only reason Tierra would agree to this partial cleanup now is if they think it will head off the possibility of EPA adopting — and forcing them to implement — a more complete cleanup plan.
EPA had been considering a range of alternatives to remove and/or “cap” all of the contaminated sediment in the lower 8 miles of the river — the area where the most highly contaminated sediments, laden with dioxin from the Diamond Alkali site — continually mix around with the tides. A link to EPA’s most recent (May 2008) presentation on these altnatives is at the bottom of this web-page:
http://www.ourpassaic.org/projectsites/premis_public/index.cfm?fuseaction=EarlyAction
All of those alternatives are far more sweeping — and, of course, far more expensive — than the limited work Tierra has now volunteered to do. After 30 years of delay and obfuscation, and on the verge of EPA selection of a much more comprehensive cleanup plan, we’re supposed to believe this is out of the goodness of their hearts???
Some Questions:
Why did Lautenberg praise this plan?
Why did Sierra Club not oppose it and create an appearance of support?
Who is Tierra paying off?
Who is pulling the political strings?
Who fed this story to the Star Ledger and why?
Some Questions:
Why did Lautenberg praise this plan?
Why did Sierra Club not oppose it and create an appearance of support?
Who is Tierra paying off?
Who is pulling the political strings?
Who fed this story to the Star Ledger and why?