WolfeNotes.com

DEP Headquarters – Trenton, NJ

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) broke the story that a recent EPA audit of NJ DEP environmental programs ripped DEP’s continuing poor performance and lack of effective oversight of polluters. We thank our friends in DEP for outing this bad news, that both EPA and DEP would have swept under the rug – you never  see this stuff in the avalanche of EPA and DEP press releases.

Perhaps the most shockingly unacceptable finding is that DEP takes polluters “at their word“, without conducting field inspections, sampling, or audits to verify their work:

Finding 8: None of the Site Remediation Program’s bureaus interviewed do any project assessment and/or process improvement beyond data validation, (i.e. no field audits, no split samples, no internal assessments, etc). The EPA assessment team was told that Responsible Party contractors and/or NJDEP contractors are “certified professionals and taken at their word.” (link to report here)

Here’s some of the press coverage:

EPA scolds N.J.’s DEP  – (click for complete article)

Friday, August 28, 2009

By MICHAEL SYMONS
Gannett State Bureau

An audit by the federal Environmental Protection Agency found the state Department of Environmental Protection still hasn’t made fixes promised since 2006 and detailed extensive shortfalls in New Jersey’s toxic-site cleanup [Note: and wetlands and other] program.

In a sense, the report means the EPA — headed by former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson — is criticizing the management of the DEP during the years Jackson was in charge. …

Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst who is now director of the New Jersey chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the DEP is failing to meet minimum federal quality and performance standards.

“This audit is an indictment of DEP management for failing fundamental tests of competence,” Wolfe said. “Without basic procedures for assuring the accuracy and quality of performance data a public agency cannot even be sure that its shoes are tied.”

EPA Criticizes NJ’s Monitoring of Contaminated Sites (listen to mp3 here)

NEW YORK, NY August 28, 2009 – The US Environmental Protection Agency is citing problems with how New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection monitors thousands of contaminated sites. WNYC’s Bob Hennelly has more.

REPORTER: The EPA Region two audit of New Jersey’s DEP says the state lacks basic quality controls to ensure the accuracy of its testing and monitoring. As a result the EPA found “potentially significant vulnerabilities in how the DEP collected data to back up its own decision making“. Bill Wolfe, is a former career DEP analyst, with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

WOLFE: The point of the audit is that the state has no basis to tell the public that they have the confidence that the decisions that they are making are really sound scientifically and actually protect the public health.

REPORTER: A DEP spokesperson says the agency is still reviewing the EPA findings. The federal review covers the time that current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was in charge of the New Jersey’s DEP. Her office had no comment. For WNYC I’m Bob Hennelly.

Report: ‘Significant shortcomings’ in state environmental agency

Thursday, August 27, 2009

BY JAMES M. O’NEILL

The Record

STAFF WRITER

A federal audit of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection identified what it called “significant shortcomings” in how the DEP operates, especially in the division that handles contaminated site cleanups.

The DEP’s site remediation program doesn’t provide proper oversight of contaminated site cleanups because program officers don’t follow up with field audits or internal assessments, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency report, released Thursday.

The EPA faulted the DEP officials for failing to verify what the private contractors of polluters told them about site cleanups. The DEP officials even told the EPA during interviews that the contractors were “certified professionals and taken at their word”, the report said. (link) 

NJ DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello – on the hot seat

 

This latest EPA audit follows a scathing 2008 EPA Inspector General’s Report that prompted EPA to take over a number of toxics site cleanups due to years of failure by DEP – see EPA IG Report here.

Will DEP Commissioner Mauriello announce reforms? Will EPA have the balls to strictly oversee DEP and enforce federal laws? Will the Governor or the legislature conduct oversight? Will Chris Daggett, that alleged champion of reform and former DEP Commissioner, speak out? Will the press do additional followup stories to inform the public about the impacts of this failed oversight on public health and the environrment? Will NJ environmental community engage?

More shoes to drop in this story – we will keep you posted.

Pennsylvania coal power plant on the Delaware River

Think coal: Global warming. Mountaintop removal. Sludge impoundment blowouts. Poisoned waterways. Acid rain. Smog. Unsafe mines. Exploited workers. Devastated communities.

The most recent nail in coal’s coffin?

An important new study by the US Geological Survey was released this week. The study documents extensive mercury pollution due to coal power and provides a huge test of the Obama administration’s commitments to develop strict new mercury emissions controls at the nation’s dirty coal power plants. The key policy issues? The inside political history?

Will EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson propose the equivalent of NJ’s strict State emission standards on the nation’s coal power plants?

What was Christie Whitman’s role in the NJ mercury issue? How did it shape her response as EPA Administrator to accommodate energy and coal interests during the Bush years (recall the Orwellian “Clear Skies” that was slammed by NJ officials)?

Here’s the news coverage:

WASHINGTON DC:

No fish can escape mercury pollution.  That’s the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.

The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.

The study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most comprehensive look to date at mercury in the nation’s streams. From 1998 to 2005, scientists collected and tested more than a thousand fish, including bass, trout and catfish, from 291 streams nationwide.

“This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation’s waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement.

Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children. The main source of mercury to most of the streams tested, according to the researchers, is emissions from coal-fired power plants. The mercury released from smokestacks here and abroad rains down into waterways, where natural processes convert it into methylmercury — a form that allows the toxin to wind its way up the food chain into fish. (read full story here)

This USGS study also confirms scientific research and regulatory standards adopted in NJ over 15 years ago.

Few are aware of this history. It can provide important insights into the current national policy debate.

Fifteen years ago, former Bush EPA Adminsitrator Chritie Whitman had extensive direct involvement with mercury as NJ Governor. Whitman’s NJ role foreshadowed her actions as head of the Bush EPA, which delayed and then proposed a weak mercury emission rule that was overturned by the courts.

Current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson served as NJ DEP Commissioner. Jackson was Assistant Commissioner for Land Use when her boss, Brad Campbell led NJ DEP to adopted a strict emission standard for coal plants in 2004.

Jackson’s EPA is now considering that same issue and developing a national proposal to regulate mercury emissions at the nation’s dirty coal plants.

So, with the former and current head of EPA both coming from NJ, I’m sure we will hear the standard line about NJ’s environmental leadership.

But instead of the press corps merely parroting this talking point on NJ’s leadership, the press and the public should be doing some digging and asking tough questions.

So, let’s take a closer look at the NJ history in light of the current debate.

The mercury issue first arose in NJ in the late 1980’s in the fight against garbage incinerators. In 1990, Governor Florio Administration issued an Executive Order that imposed a moratorium on garbage incinerators and created a Mercury Task Force.

In 1993, the Florio Task Force issued a 3 Volume Report that provided the public health and scientific bases for DEP to adopt what was then the strongest mercury air emissions standards for garbage incinerators in the world. While the initial focus was of the Task Force was on garbage incineration, the Report also announced plans to expand emission standards to coal fired power plants, another major mercury source. At the same time, DEP engaged the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences to study levels or mercury in freshwater fish across the state.

The Florio policy and plans to regulate coal plants were derailed in 1994 by the Whitman Administration and new DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn. Their actions set back NJ for over a decade. It took 10 more years before NJ got back on track and finally adopted standards on coal plants in 2004. Because of that Whitman/Shinn delay, we will be paying for that with our children’s neurological impairment as a result of mercury poisoning.

Shinn was a strong supporter of garbage incineration and personally reversed the Florio policy. Shinn was also close to the state’s recreational fishermen, who were hotly opposed to the fish studies. Whitman was “Open for Business” and politically sympathetic to PSEG and state power utilities that operated coal plans. A major new coal plant was proposed along the Delaware River (Crown Vista). Mercury was a fly in the Whitman/Shinn ointment.

In early 1994, at the start of Whitman/Shinn regime, a DEP study conducted by the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences was leaked to the media and reported widely.

The leaked study was page one news. The study documented statewide unsafe levels of toxic mercury in NJ freshwater fish.

Widespread press coverage cast DEP and the Whitman administration in a negative light. In response, Governor Whitman sought to downplay the risks of this study.

Environmentalists accused the state of ignoring its mercury problem, and the press blasted the Governor.

Whitman responded and compared the mercury in fish risks to the recent public reaction (“scare”) to media reports of the health risks of the pesticide alar on apples. The apple industry suffered huge economic losses as demand fell in response to the alar story. Whitman felt the public’s reaction was unwarranted, and unfair to the apple industry. Whitman sought to avoid a similar situation in NJ.

To do this, the Governor and DEP Commissioner came up with a plan to mislead the public by saying that the Philadelphia Academy study was preliminary and inconclusive. The Whitman scheme relied on a bogus and knowingly false claim that the form of mercury found in the fish was unknown and therefore required further research before taking any action. Whitman and Shinn did not make honest mistakes or minor misstatements.

Whitman’s public statements, extensively quoted in the press, were part of a strategy to falsely inject scientific uncertainty and minimize health risks in order to avoid taking regulatory against specific pollution sources of mercury (garbage incinerators and coal fired power plants).

Whitman was denounced by environmentalists in the press for this. When this scientific research was leaked and a coverup strategy memo were disclosed to the public by the press, Whitman not only repeated the lies but also retaliated against a career DEP employee who called her on those lies.

In addition to Whitman being scolded for her errors by academic scientists in the press, scientists in DEP called the Governor out on her lies – Here is the DEP memo:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY,

March 28, 1994.

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Commissioner Robert Shinn.
THROUGH: Robert Tucker, Ph.D., Director.
FROM: Leslie McGeorge, Assistant Director.
SUBJECT: Information on Mercury in Fish.

Over the past several weeks, it has been observed that information attributed by the press to the Governor’s Office on the issue of mercury in fish has contained some technical inaccuracies. We offer the information in this memorandum for your consideration in providing the Governor’s Office with further clarification of this issue.

As was stated by the Governor’s Office, there are three forms of mercury:
* Elemental Mercury (metallic mercury). This is the type of mercury used in thermometers.
* Inorganic Mercury (mercury salts). An example is mercuric chloride.
* Organic Mercury. Methylmercury is the most important organic mercury compound in terms of environmental exposure.

Contrary to the statements reported in the press, all three forms of mercury are toxic to humans. Elemental mercury is volatile, and it is toxic when breathed from the air; exposure to elemental mercury can cause effects on the central nervous system.

The toxicity of the other two types of mercury (inorganic and organic) can occur through ingestion, which is the exposure route relevant to mercury in fish. Inorganic mercury is toxic to the kidney. Methylmercury, the organic mercury of primary concern, is toxic to the central nervous system. The most sensitive toxic effect of Methylmercury in non-pregnant adults is paresthesia (abnormal sensations in the skin). Methylmercury is also toxic to the developing fetus, and causes defects in the development of the nervous system. This developmental toxicity is the most sensitive effect of exposure to methylmercury.

Of the different forms of mercury, all scientific data indicate that essentially all of the mercury in fish is methylmercury. The most recent and reliable investigation into the occurrence of methylmercury in fish conducted under ultraclean laboratory conditions (Bloom, 1992) showed that almost all of the mercury in the edible portion of fish and shellfish (muscle tissue) is in the form of methylmercury. This study included multiple samples (at least 3) of 15 species. For all species, the average percentage of methylmercury was at least 91 percent of total mercury, and for all freshwater fish species, methylmercury was 96 percent or more of total mercury. These results are generalizable to all marine and freshwater fish.

Information attributed to the Governor by the press indicated that there may be a marked difference in the ease of metabolism of different forms of mercury, and that the toxicity of mercury is-dependent on whether it is released naturally or by man-made processes. Actually, the time required for the body to rid itself of a dose of mercury is generally similar for all three forms of mercury. Additionally, the toxicity of a given form of mercury is not dependent on whether it originated from natural or man-made processes. Any type of mercury released may undergo changes from one form to the other in the environment. The mercury in fish may have come from either source, but the origin of the mercury in the tissue is not relevant to the potential for toxicity to humans.

In summary, there are three forms of mercury. For all intents and purposes the only form of mercury found in fish is methylmercury. Exposure to methylmercury through fish ingestion can pose a significant potential for adverse human health effects.

Mercury in fish may originate from human or natural processes, but this distinction is not relevant from a human health perspective.
The Division of Science and Research has additional information on all of the points mentioned above. We would be happy to discuss these issues further with you at your convenience if you so desire. (1)” [end]

Senator Sarlo (D-Bargen) Chairs Regulatory Oversight Committee (5/1/08)

The latest corruption scandal in NJ has received widespread press coverage and calls for reform.

Importantly, for the first time, corruption has been linked to its impacts on the environment (see: Bergen Record: Builders call the shots; and DEP E-Mails follow lawmakers request; Star Ledger: N.J. environmental groups call for investigation of DEP in light of corruption arrests; Courier Post: Groups call for Probe of DEP and Star Ledger editorial: Consider CleanGreenNJ’s call for a DEP government cleanup (the CleanGreen NJ reform platform backed by the Star Ledger can be found here).

Yet, while the FBI “Bid Rig” investigation that led to criminal indictments of 44 state and local officials – including 2 state Assemblymen – was ongoing, virtually the same corrupt game was going on during this extraordinary hearing of the Senate Legislative Oversight Committee on June 4, 2009

What went on during this Senate hearing is effectively as corrupt as the behavior of Assemblyman Van Pelt (who bragged “DEP works for me“ and that he “knew the “right guys” at DEP and how to “work the channels”) and Assemblyman Smith were criminally indicted for.

Follow the logic in 3 easy steps and keep in mind that DEP “rules” are LAWS, so what we have here is a State Senator (and Mayor) pressuring public officials to allow violations of law:

Step #1 – DEP explains the large environmental stakes:

“We believe, and the current Rules reflect, that it would be poor public policy to extend sewer service at public expense to subsidize and encourage the development of resources the agency is charged to protect. Promoting the extension of sewers and to threaten endangered species habitats, unique and rare ecological communities, and wetlands just does not make sense to us.”

Step #2 – Senator Sarlo brazenly admits he privately intervened on behalf of the economic interests of builders – to pressure DEP Commissioner to not enforce laws:

“We actually — this Committee met May 1 of 2008,  [I wrote about this hearing here “Builders Gone Wild”] and we had a series of hearings — on May 1, 2008 — with regard to these Rules [issues discussed here, “Builders Escalate Assault on Environment“]  The Rules were ultimately adopted in July of 2008 and went into effect April of  2009 — of this year. In February and March of this year, I had begun an open dialogue with the Department of Environmental Protection and their Commissioner, sharing some of the concerns of the Legislature with regard to counties following through and having their plans approved. And as we know, there are many counties, as we sit here today, whose plans are not approved. What is the impact on the building community with these plans not being approved?”

Step# 3 – DEP admits they caved into political pressure from Senator Sarlo and will not enforce laws:

“Senator Sarlo, I know that many present here have expressed concern to you over the draft line, and I know that Acting Commissioner Mauriello has been in communication with you on this issue. Foremost, there was significant concern that the Department would withdraw all future sewer service area on April 7 for counties or on July 9 for municipalities if they did not submit their Wastewater Management Plans. The counties are crucial to the success of this project. We are bound to them in partnership. As you know, the Department has extended the counties’ submission deadlines, and will continue to work with them as necessary and appropriate to see this process through. We have no plans, at this time, to unilaterally withdraw a sewer service area from counties that do not have current Water Quality Management Plans.” (page 4-5)

[Note: DEP put this all in writing, read the DEP concession letter – click here

Now, let’s take a look at the text of the hearing transcript for multiple examples of Sarlo pressuring DEP and cheerleading for builders during that hearing. Whose interest is Sarlo representing? The public? The environment? Your interests? Or the narrow economic interests of the builders, property owners, and investors that fund his dual office holding campaigns (as Mayor and Senator?)

• SENATOR SARLO: Okay. And I just want to clarify that with Hudson being the only one approved right now — everything else pending, the other 16 pending, and the other four — the other three submitting their sewer authority maps, and Warren not participating at all — currently, today, if a plan is not adopted yet or approved by the Department, are we placing any moratorium on any projects that are currently pending before local boards — land use boards? (@ page 10)

• SENATOR SARLO: If there are any projects that currently have been approved, not being built because of the difficult economic times, and then they fall within these restricted areas, how are we going to deal with those projects?  (@ page 10)

• SENATOR SARLO: Have we given the counties a definitive date? I know we’ve– And we appreciate the extension, and I think it’s the right thing to do from a public policy standpoint. But has a definitive date been provided? (@page 11)

• SENATOR SARLO: Let me clarify that. Make sure we get that clarified. I live in Woodridge, where I serve as Mayor. Somebody lives out of state, owns a piece of property in New Jersey, and their property has been clipped from the sewer service area. How is that property owner going to know that his property has been clipped from that sewer service area? He lives out of state and is not paying attention. He’s not going on the Internet, he’s not paying attention to what’s happening in New Jersey, but he owns a valuable piece of property. (@ page 12)

• SENATOR SARLO: I mean, I have a concern that the perception here is, here is government coming in, taking away your rights as a property owner, and you have no say. You don’t have the ability to make a statement or make a say. If you’re sitting on a piece of property, perhaps it’s an investment property for down the road. And then you turn around to try and invest in it, you’ve made an investment, and now your property, in a way, has been devalued. So that is a concern of mine and I’m sure many others in the Legislature. (@page 13)

• SENATOR SARLO: And just one final question: Are we concerned that– Is the Department concerned that some of these rules may provide local officials with kind of a back-door method to deny an unwanted project in their community? Could they use this to hang over — not-in-my-backyard type of syndrome on a project? Could they say, “Down the road they can amend it, and your property may fall within that area that’s going to no longer be a sewer service area. So we should deny your project now?” Is there any concern by the Department on that — that it could be abused by the local municipalities? (@page 13)

Pond at Washington Crossing State Park is unhealthy and in need of restoration

Last week, I wrote about destruction of Ken Lockwood Gorge by DEP (here) – so, my head again exploded to read about another mad development scheme yesterday.

Repeating that flawed land management policy, this time, DEP is planning on destroying forested portions of historic Washington Crossing State Park

Apparently, DEP wants to build a “30 bed cabin”  in “a deeply forrested” portion of the Park! And this is claimed to be a better alternative to the one vehemently opposed by neighbors!

The park is frequented by lots of day hikers.

There are plenty of alternatives and far better things to do with DEP money, especially in these times of austere budgets and a huge backlog in maintenance across the state park system.

At Washington Crossing, trails are in very bad shape.

Stream banks are eroding and badly in need of restoration.

A small pond is sedimented and eutrophic. Picnic areas need lots of work.

Historic structures are neglected.

structures are collapsing

The theater is falling apart and could use rehab work as well.

pinnic areas need lots of work

Habitat and forestry work has been neglected for years.

stream backs are eroding due to development surrounding park. More in park development will make current problems worse.

What the hell is going on in DEP?

Are the engineer lunatics running the show?

They need some adult supervision.

At a Trenton State House news conference today, Independent Chris Daggett released his ethics reform agenda.

As I reported previously, Chris Daggett served as Chairman of the DEP “Permit Efficiency Review Task Force” – (read the Daggett’s Report to DEP here) (see a summary of troubling Task Force Report findings and recommendations below).

Daggett was appointed to that position by the Administrative  Order issued by then DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson. 

Daggett’s DEP Task Force had ethical problems from the outset. Several of its members represented clients that had ongoing regulatory issues or projects seeking approvals before the DEP, including Daggett himself.

This, at best, created the appearance of a conflict of interest, or actual conflicts.

State ethics laws prohibit creation of even an appearance of impropriety, as well as an actual conflict of interest:

(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated (NJSA 52:13D-12)

(3) No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others.

(7) No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his acts that he may be engaged in conduct violative of his trust as a State officer or employee or special State officer or employee

To remedy these problems, DEP Commisisoner Jackson was asked to make the Task Force deliberations tranparent and to restrict conflicts of interest – both she and Daggett failed to do so –
see:

NEW JERSEY TO CONSULT INDUSTRY ON ECO-REWRITES IN SECRET – “Efficiency” Task Force Members Not Barred from Self-Dealing with DEP

Trenton:

An industry-dominated task force to recommend an overhaul of state anti-pollution permits and policies will work in secret, according to an e-mail from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa Jackson to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Commissioner Jackson also rebuffed PEER recommendations that materials submitted to the task force are made a public record and that task force members be barred from lobbying DEP for their clients.

On March 25, 2008, New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe wrote Jackson asking that task force sessions be open to the public, materials submitted to the task force be made publicly available and that task force members “be precluded from having any contracts, pending regulatory approvals, or financial relationships with the Department” during the 120-day life of the task force.

In a return e-mail on the evening of April 2, 2008, Commissioner Jackson denied all of PEER’s requests. Jackson stated:

“Public input can only occur once the Task Force has completed its analysis and compiled the group’s thoughts and recommendations. At that time, I will determine how to most effectively seek and obtain input from the public”; and

“I do not consider it necessary or reasonable to restrict members of the Task Force or their respective employers from having other business before the Department.

See this link for supporting documents, including the Jackson email reply to PEER request.

BTW, a very reliable source has told me that Chris Daggett owned contaminated property and has huge economic stakes in DEP brownfields, permitting, and toxic site cleanup issues he presided over and made recommendations on as Task Force Chair. I was also told, but have not confirmed, that Daggettt owned the parcel of contaminated Jersey City land that was specifically the land mentioned in the criminal complaint of Assemblyman Harvey. Harvey was bribed to pressure DEP to issue approval of cleanup plants to allow construction of a day care center and public housing on highly toxic chromium waste site in Jersey City.

Summary if Task Force Report

Independent Chris Dagett was just endorsed for Governor by the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club. So, in an effort to educate voters, we thought we’d look at his most recent environmental accomplishment as Chairman of the DEP “Permit Efficiency Review Task Force” established by former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson. Readers can find all the relevant original documents at these links

1. Public Announcement by DEP Commissioner Jackson [link]

2. Task Force Final Report [link]

3. DEP Implementation plan [link]

Report Lowlights:

1. On “doing less with less”

“In this time of fiscal crisis, the challenge, before the DEP is to develop different approaches to managing, to consider doing less with less, recognizing that this must be done without compromising environmental protection or public health.”

2. On Privatization

In an output/performance-driven system, the DEP would focus on the efficient execution of inherently governmental functions and explore using outside assistance, advanced IT tools or both, to complete the straightforward tasks that are not necessary to be done by government. To accomplish this, a major change must occur in the way that scope and responsibility are allocated within the DEP. In short, if the DEP is ever going to reach a high level of efficiency and effectiveness, the goal for the DEP should be to determine which environmental services are essential and which can be eliminated; which can be consolidated and which cannot; which must be provided by government and which can be delivered by outside vendors or through advanced IT tools, or both.

3. On rewriting history to mask the real agenda of the Task Force –

The original composition of Task Force was established in Jackson’s Adminsitraive Order.

Later, the composition was expanded to include environmental, community and public interest representatives, but only AFTER strong public criticism of its failure to represent public interests (glad to provide that criticism to document the chronology):

The members of the Task Force included representatives of residential and commercial developers, environmental organizations, land use planning firms, nongovernment organizations, housing advocacy groups, business and industry, the environmental justice community, counties, municipalities, public utilities authorities, engineering firms, the EPA, the Governor’s office and environmental consulting firms. Three were former cabinet members: DEP, Transportation and Community Affairs. Exhibit 2 is a list of the members of the Task Force and their affiliations.

4. On ignoring the only pro-environment objectives, exposing them as green cover (notice the use of “shall and “may” and the limit in scope to “incentives” (aka subsidies) as opposed to “regulations” which apparently are taboo)):

 b. The report of the Task Force shall also provide recommendations for operational, policy and regulatory changes at the department to provide incentives for and to advance sustainable development projects that contribute to achieving statewide greenhouse gas limits, economic growth opportunities in urban areas and meaningful affordable housing and that, as a result of their location and design, have little or no impact on public health and safety, the environment or natural resources; and

c. As part of its deliberations, the Task Force may also identify possible statutory changes that would result in enhancing the DEP’s timely and efficient service or the DEP’s ability to provide incentives for sustainable development projects that contribute to achieving statewide greenhouse gas limits, economic growth opportunities in urban areas and meaningful affordable housing and that, as a result of their location and design, have little or no impact on public health and safety, the environment or natural resources.”

Where are these pro-environment recommendations in the Report? Not there.

5. On the use of Orwellian euphemism to mask a pro-business anti-environmental agenda:

 In short, the Commissioner formed the Task Force out of a concern that the current permitting process cannot keep up with demand. The Commissioner asked the Task Force to help her in making the permit process more timely, predictable, consistent and transparent to the regulated community [but not to the public?] and to do so at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers while enhancing New Jersey’s environment.” 

6. On confirming the fact that DEP rubber stamps most permits – only the really bad projects need “streamlining”

 Overall, 90 percent to 95 percent are approved, often with substantial changes as a result of DEP input, with the remainder being denied or withdrawn. The permit decisions are usually made within the statutory timeframe, which varies from program to program. The permitting system breaks down most frequently when there are multiple permits for a single project, when projects are large in size and when impacts to the environment are complex and potentially extensive.

7. On how the Big Boys in the Private sector know best – Task Force say DEP should emulate the large polluters who off-shored jobs and deindustrialized the US manufacturing base:

 Overall, there is no single silver bullet that can fix the various permitting problems of the DEP. Rather, what is needed is similar to the approach that enables certain manufacturing companies to stand out in their fields. The success of these companies is rooted in rigorous and unrelenting attention to all of the little details of the manufacturing process, or in the DEP’s case, the permitting process. The successful manufacturing companies have created a work culture with a bias toward action“ a performance-driven environment “ and have empowered its employees to perform.

8. On providing a rationale Commissioner Jackson relied on to privatize DEP science (i.e. Science Advisory Board) and abolish the Division of Science and Research – the “study group” was never formed, nor was the mistaken recommendation to “restore the stature of the Office” implemented (BTW, Science and Research was a Division at the time of this Report, a revealing error. The Division was downsized to an Office):

“In the course of Task Force deliberations, two issues arose which were outside the charge of the Administrative Order but which directly impact the efficiency of the DEP. The first is the quality of science and research that provides the underpinning of the policies, guidance, directives and regulations of the DEP. Through the first two decades of the DEP’s history, the Office of Science and Research was one of the most highly regarded programs in the country. However, during the past two decades, budget cuts and reorganizations have undercut the quality of the program. While the Office still does excellent work, the staff simply cannot keep up with the breadth and scope of DEP needs. Accordingly, the TaskForce recommends that the DEP convene a study group that examines this issue and addresses possible ways to restore the stature of the Office, with a particular focus on collaborative efforts with academic research institutions and outstanding practitioners to minimize or avoid significant budget and staff increases.”