Archive

Archive for September, 2008

Why is Corzine getting a pass on Cheney lite?

September 17th, 2008 5 comments

Let me make an important point by way of comparison. I fudged the Cheney hypothetical slightly to fit NJ, and names have not been changed to protect the innocent.
Suppose Dick Cheney called his energy industry cronies and lobbyists to serve on an “Energy Reform Task Force”. Suppose, after public criticism, Cheney appointed a few token environmentalists to provide some balance and cover. Suppose that Task Force meetings were closed to the public and the Task Force given free reign to probe the EPA bureaucracy, including the EPA staff and management that regulate the energy industry. This includes access to EPA staff with current ongoing regulation (i.e. permit review) of a Task Force member company.
Then suppose this “Task Force” issued a “Report” that ignored global warming and told an historical fairy tale that over-regulation, EPA bureaucracy, and lawsuits by radical environmental obstructionist were the causes of the high cost of energy (e.g. by blocking refinery expansion and drilling/leases for oil/gas reserves off shore and on public lands).
Suppose the “Task Force” noted a 25% cut in EPA staff, lack of scientific expertise at EPA, and pervasive politicization of EPA decisions – but took no steps to fix those problems, instead recommending that EPA must “do less with less”, while relying on “outside help” of energy consultants to issue EPA permits.
Environmental groups would be denouncing the Task Force and holding press conferences leading to front page NY TImes and Washington Post news, no?
Well, the same thing has just occurred here in NJ and it has fallen under the media radar. I would think this would be even more newsworthy given the purported pro-environmental stance of the Corzine administration, as opposed to the obviously anti-environmental Bush/Cheney regime.
Read all about it below – just insert “Lisa Jackson” for “Dick Cheney” and “developers” for the “energy industry”:
Business Report to DEP: “Do Less With Less”
Do you want less environmental protection?
“In this time of fiscal crisis, the challenge before the DEP is to … consider doing less with less”
Permit Efficiency Task Force Report to DEP – see: http://www.nj.gov/dep/permittf/docs/final_report_8_7_08.pdf
Today, – over a month late – DEP released the long awaited Report of the “Permit Efficiency Task Force”.
In anticipation of the release of this Report, on August 6, 2008, the day before the Report was due, I wrote this:
Controversial DEP Task Force Report Due
Stage Set – Deadline for Industry dominated Report tomorrow
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/08/controversial_dep_reform_task.html

Bill WolfeLisa P. Jackson, DEP Commissioner

Back in March, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson issued an Order creating the “Permit Efficiency Task Force”. Jackson directed the Task Force to issue recommendations on ways to streamline DEP permit programs. Task Force members read like a who’s who list of pro-development Trenton insiders with a long history in NJ environmental politics. (for the 19 original members, see: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/08_25_3_task_force_membership.pdf
After our criticism of the business dominated composition, Jackson expanded the 19 member body to include 3 environmental group representatives. The reader of the Task Force Report would not be aware of this history, because only the final 24 member body is presented.
Read the full story, with links to documents here:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/09/business_dominated_task_force.html

Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

Business Report to DEP: “Do Less With Less”

September 16th, 2008 No comments

Do you want less environmental protection?
“In this time of fiscal crisis, the challenge before the DEP is to … consider doing less with less”
Permit Efficiency Task Force Report to DEP – see: http://www.nj.gov/dep/permittf/docs/final_report_8_7_08.pdf

Bill WolfeLisa P. Jackson, DEP Commissioner

Today, – over a month late – DEP released the long awaited Report of the “Permit Efficiency Task Force”.
In anticipation of the release of this Report, on August 6, 2008, the day before the Report was due, I wrote this:
Controversial DEP Task Force Report Due
Stage Set – Deadline for Industry dominated Report tomorrow
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/08/controversial_dep_reform_task.html
Back in March, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson issued an Order creating the “Permit Efficiency Task Force”. Jackson directed the Task Force to issue recommendations on ways to streamline DEP permit programs. Task Force members read like a who’s who list of pro-development Trenton insiders with a long history in NJ environmental politics. (for the 19 original members, see: http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/08_25_3_task_force_membership.pdf
After our criticism of the business dominated composition, Jackson expanded the 19 member body to include 3 environmental group representatives. The reader of the Task Force Report would not be aware of this history, because only the final 24 member body is presented.
But our other criticisms were ignored, so, given the state of the economy, I was expecting a really bad Report.
But, it looks like the lobbyists who wrote the report were slick enough to dodge all the minefields, but yet at the same time they identified numerous major problems at DEP.
The public would be shocked to learn of some of the major problems the Task Force identified, but did not propose any solutions for. Perhaps this is due to the lack of technical expertise amongst the Task Force members:
1. Severe staff and budget cuts
The Task Force Report acknowledges that severe staff and budget cuts at DEP have hampered their ability to protect the environment:
“During the past two decades, despite an increasing number of rules and regulations, with a corresponding increase in responsibilities and workload, DEP staff levels have been reduced by more than 1,000 employees – about 25 percent. Further reductions are continuing to take place as of this writing.”
2. Erosion of science
The Task Force documented that DEP’s once nationally prominent scientific capabilities have been eroded:
“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.”

3. Pervasive politcal influence on decisions
The Task Force admitted that DEP is pressured by lobbyists and decisions are often politicized:
“In the absence of a process to establish DEP permit review priorities, individuals and representatives of various constituencies frequently seek to establish preferences in permit review schedules. Such activities are rarely transparent to the public and can add to inefficiencies in the permitting process.”
4. Bureaucratic silos
The Task Force documented that single purpose programs operate in “silo’s”
“The second issue, which has been mentioned in several places in the report, concerns the sometimes overlapping, conflicting and too often overly complex maze of regulations governing the workings of the DEP. As with many governmental bureaucracies, little attention was paid over the years to the cumulative impact of new statutes and regulations.”
5. Failure to consider cumulative impacts
The environmental community has long called for DEP to develop enforceable science based standards to protect ecosystems from what are known as “cumulative impacts”. Instead of addressing this issue, the business dominated Task Force ignored the environment and complained about the cumulative impacts of regulations on the economy:
“Finally, while not a specific focus of the Task Force, there are instances in which the cumulative impact of nearly 40 years of statutes, executive and administrative orders, guidance documents and policy directives has been conflicting, overlapping and counterproductive regulations that have a troublesome impact on permitting efficiency.”
6. Sustainble development and global warming given short shrift
Jackson’s order purported to address sustainable development and global warming:
“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;”
There simply are is no there there – There are no technical recommendations to satisfy this Jackson directive. This calls into serious question DEP’s commitment to sustainable development and global warming policies.
7. Public relations campaign
Instead of substantively addressing any of these complex scientific, legal and policy problems, the Task Force called for more spin over substance:
“On a parallel track during the first month following release of the report, the DEP should make it a priority to brief the executive office, legislative leaders, the regulated community, environmental groups and other community leaders on the details of the report and solicit their support for the effort and their ideas for implementation. The DEP also should carry out a public outreach program which includes media outlets and editorial boards.“
If you’ve read this far, you won the Wonk Award!
I will do a followup post explaining the Report in more detail.

Categories: Hot topics, Law & order, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

DEP cracks down on air polluters – Dirty coal, industry, and power plants

September 15th, 2008 No comments

Federally mandated new rules would require emissions reductions to meet Clean Air Act Standards
DEP proposal would require polluters to install modern pollution control technology: See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/080408a.pdf

Bill WolfeVineland municipal power plant

The entire state of New Jersey fails to meet federal Clean Air Act health based standards for ground level ozone and other pollutants. These pollutants create unhealthy air commonly referred to as smog, especially during hot sunny summer days.

Bill Wolfe

For many years, state officials have told the public that NJ has the strictest standards on instate industrial polluters (so called “stationary sources”), and that our air pollution problems are caused largely by pollution that blows in from states to the south and midwest, and cars adn truck (so called “mobile sources”).
But, in the fine print of the DEP proposal, we now learn that many large NJ industrial “stationary sources” have not installed “Reasonably Available Control Technology” (RACT) mandated by the Clean Air Act. In fact, some sources have uncontrolled emissions. As a result, US EPA has forced NJ DEP to enforce the Clean Air Act and require that major industrial sources install RACT.
According to DEP, the new pollution controls are required to protect public health:
“Ozone exposure can cause irritation of the lungs. This can make the lungs more vulnerable to diseases such as pneumonia and bronchitis, increase incidents of asthma and susceptibility to respiratory infections, reduce lung function, reduce an individual’s ability to exercise and aggravate chronic lung diseases. Increased ozone concentrations severely affect the quality of life for susceptible populations – small children, the elderly, and asthmatics – and present health risks for everyone. Exposure to ozone for several hours at relatively low concentrations significantly reduces lung function and induces respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function is generally accompanied by symptoms such as chest pain, coughing, sneezing, and pulmonary congestion (MARAMA 2005 Report).

Bill WolfePSEG Hamilton cola power plan now installing some pollution controls

Recent research in Southern California strongly suggests that, in addition to exacerbating existing asthma, ozone also causes asthma in children (MARAMA 2005 Report). Long term exposure may lead to scarring of lung tissue and lowered lung efficiency. Repeated exposure may cause permanent lung damage. When ozone reaches unhealthy levels, children, people who are active outdoors, and people with respiratory disease are most at risk. The Department estimates that attaining the Federal 1997 8-hour NAAQS for ozone in New Jersey would eliminate about 40,000 asthma attacks each year and substantially reduce hospital admissions and emergency room visits among children and adults with asthma and other respiratory diseases (NJDEP 2006 ozone report).”
Acording to DEP. the proposed new rules will impact major industrial pollution sources, including:

Bill Wolfe

* asphalt pavement production plants;
* boilers serving electric generating units;
* glass manufacturing furnaces;
* municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators;
* VOC stationary storage tanks.

Bill WolfeCamden garbage incinerator

The proposed amendments would ensure that all ten (10) operating coal-fired boilers in New Jersey have modern air pollution control for NOx, particles, and SO2 by 2013. The Department estimates that implementing these measures will, by 2013, reduce NOx emissions by 2.16 tpd during the ozone season and 788 tons per year, and reduce SO2 emissions by 7.04 tpd during the ozone season and 2,571 tons per year.

Bill WolfeBeasley’s point coal power plant

Coal-fired boilers are the highest emitting sources of particles, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in New Jersey.
These ten coal power plant boilers and their locations are:
B.L. England Generating Station unit 1 – Upper Township, Cape May County,
B.L. England Generating Station unit 2 – Upper Township, Cape May County,
Carney’s Point Generating Station unit 1 – Carney’s Point, Salem County,
Carney’s Point Generating Station unit 2 – Carney’s Point, Salem County,
Deepwater Generating Station unit 6/8 – Pennsville, Salem County,
Hudson Generating Station unit 2 – Jersey City, Hudson County,
Logan Generating Plant – Logan Township, Gloucester County,
Mercer Generating Station unit 1 – Hamilton Township, Mercer County,
Mercer Generating Station unit 2 – Hamilton Township, Mercer County, and
Vineland Municipal Electric Utility unit 10 – City of Vineland, Cumberland County
http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/080408a.pdf
Glass Manufacturing Furnaces

Bill WolfeAnchor Glass container plant

The Department is proposing to lower NOx emissions from glass manufacturing furnaces. There are seven plants in New Jersey, with a total of 25 furnaces that produce container glass, pressed glass, blown glass, and fiberglass. The proposed rules would require nine furnaces to implement additional emission control measures to comply with the proposed emission limit.
High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) Units

Bill WolfePSEG Bergen plant

The proposed new rule will address the NOx emissions from High Electric Demand Day (HEDD) units, also called HEDD electric generating units. HEDD units are electric generating units that are capable of generating 15 MW or more and are operated less than or equal to an average of 50 percent of the time during the previous three ozone seasons. The Department proposes to tighten the emission standards for HEDD units because these units emit significant quantities of NOx on high electric demand days, which are typically high temperature and high ozone days during the summer. The current New Jersey HEDD units, based on data from 2004 through 2006, consist of eight boilers and approximately 160 stationary combustion turbines.

Bill Wolfetanks emit volatile organic chemicals

A public hearing concerning this proposal and a proposed State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision, represented by this proposal, will be held on Friday, September 26, 2008 at 10A.M.:
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hearing Room, 1st Floor
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Directions to the hearing room may be found at the Department’s website address at
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/where.htm.

Bill Wolfe

Submit written comments by close of business on October 3, 2008, to:
Alice A. Previte, Esq.
Attention: DEP Docket No. 10-08-07/643
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Legal Affairs
401 East State Street, Fourth Floor
PO Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

Art and Freedom

September 12th, 2008 1 comment

“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Ben Franklin http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
“As a poet, I would have to say that 9/11 changed the language itself … 9/11 is a big abstraction. … In the name of 9/11 and in the name of the war on terror, phrases like “weapons of mass destruction” and “enhanced interrogation” have entered our political vocabulary. These phrases, for me, divorce language from meaning, and thus divorce action from consequence. If you’re engaged in enhanced interrogation you’re not engaged in torture, and thus, we in society come to embrace torture in the name of security. I think we have to do whatever we can to combat this tendency in the language. The fact is that this language is used to foster a culture of fear so that in turn people will act against their own interests. And that’s why we’re now embroiled in two wars“
Martin Espada. Poet and Professor, University of Massachusetts
PBS Newhour – 9/11/08 MP3 http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/09/11/20080911_sevenyears28.mp3
Espada’s website:http://www.martinespada.net/
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
George Orwell – “Politics and the English Language” 1946
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
On the shoulders of these giants, I share my pedestrian experience.
Yesterday, I went to US District Court in Newark to listen to oral argument in a case filed by Edison Wetlands Association seeking to force a toxic polluter to stop discharging toxic chemicals to the Raritan River. A long and disgraceful story.
But, as I approached the Federal Square complex, a beautiful piece of sculpture caught my eye. Of course – since a core part of my mission is amateur photojournalism – I moved to take a picture.

Bill Wolfe

In response, US Federal marshall Gerald Mauriello aggressively swooped in, sternly advised that I was on “federal property”, and “taking pictures of federal buildings is prohibited”. He demanded personal identification. I asked on what legal basis he did so, under the impression that we have both Constitutional and inalienable rights, and there is no US citizen identification card (at least not yet).
To which he angrily replied: “Don’t you know what f-cking day it is!”

Bill WolfeUS Marshall Mauriello rushes to avert terrorism because – as the Leader and Decider has repeated – the terrorists hate our freedom.

Feel safer now?

Bill WolfeThomas Paine – patriot and truth teller
Bill Wolfe“Don’t tread on Me”
Bill Wolfe
Hey Mr. US Marshall Mauriello – is it now illegal to photo these federal buildings? Just askin’.

Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill WolfeUS Supreme Court – note the couple kneeling in prayer on the steps
Categories: Family & kids, Hot topics, Law & order, Policy watch, Politics, Race & immigration, Taxes, The working life Tags:

Environmentalists Blast Corzine for signing builders bailout bill

September 10th, 2008 4 comments

Sierra Club and Environmental Federation issue harsh statements – builders lobby applauds

Bill WolfeGovernor Jon Corzine

Today, the national press reported that that the Bush Administration publicly announced a massive taxpayer bailout of Fannie May and Freddie Mac to shore up the home mortgage industry and financial markets:
“Wall Street finally got what it’s been angling for: a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could aid a recovery of the broken U.S. housing market and arrest a slide in stock and credit markets worldwide.”
see: Wall Street may cheer Fannie, Freddie bailout
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jy692KLMSLspHP266VKGfJPAR1CgD932FEK00
At the same time here in NJ, there were more giveaways to “stimulate” the building industry. In a sharp contrast to last Friday’s high profile environmental photo-op on the Highlands, Governor Corzine quietly signed into law his own housing market “regulatory relief” bill backed by builders lobby, known as “The Permit Extension Act” (see last line of today’s press release:
http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080908a.html
The NJ builders lobby also “finally got what it was angling for”. And as expected, the business community and Wall Street are cheering the Corzine move too. See: Permit Extension Bill is Now Law
http://www.globest.com/news/1240_1240/newjersey/173615-1.html
Whatever you think about the wisdom of the Bush bailout, at least it was directly related to the causes of a real financial crisis in the housing industry.
In contrast, the bill signed by Corzine was a sham.
Simply put, the NJ builders lobby shamefully exploited a real national financial crisis to undermine completely unrelated State environmental protections.
And just how bad is it when the Bush EPA is opposed to it?

Bill WolfeDEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson whispers in Governor Corzine’s ear. Jackson negotiated the Permit Extension Act

Surprisingly, the notoriously anti-environmental Bush EPA went on record to oppose the “Permit Extension Act”, warning the Governor and the Legislature that the bill would violate federal law. DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson deftly negotiated window dressing amendments to address EPA’s opposition, but the underlying problems that prompted EPA to intervene remain. And the Jackson amendments protected the “green” areas of the state while treating the urban areas of NJ as environmental sacrifice zones. So much for the rhetoric on environmental justice and new green building design to address global warming.
Where is the economic relief for thousands of NJ homeowners facing home foreclosure and bankruptcy?
Read the environmental group statements:
Sierra Club Blasts Governor for Signing Permit Extension Act

Bill WolfeJeff Tittel, Executive Director Sierra CLub, NJ Chapter

“Over the weekend Governor Corzine signed the Permit Extension Act. This was done behind closed doors and without putting out any kind of statement. . “The Permit Extension Act is one of the worst environmental bills ever passed by the New Jersey legislators and one of the biggest giveaways to developers in the state’s history,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “The way in which the governor chose to sign this bill shows just how bad this bill is – he couldn’t even sign it in public or let the public know what he was doing.”
[full statement here: http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/PressReleases/0029.asp
The NJ Environmental Federation’s release said:
Corzine Signs Controversial Bill Undermining Core Environmental Protections
Signed in “Dead of Night”, Announced 2 Days After The Fact Befitting Act’s ‘Dracula Clause’

Bill WolfeDave Pringle, NJ Environmental Federation

Trenton, NJ — Environmentalists today strongly criticized Governor Corzine’s signing of the highly controversial Permit Extension Act (Greenwald/Sarlo). The Governor signed the bill Saturday but only announced it today with one sentence in a press release mentioning several other bills.
“We’ll be seeing the Governor in court. This bill undermines core environmental and public health protections, good planning and the constitution,” stated David Pringle, Campaign Director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation (NJEF), noting the manner in which the bill was signed betrayed the Act’s supposed intent. “If this bill was really going to provide the economic stimulus suggested, where was all the pomp and circumstance typical of such a bill signing?”
Over 30 environmental groups had asked the Governor to conditionally veto the bill on substantive grounds while lawyers for two, including NJEF, did so on legal grounds. The Governor’s office ignored the letters never even formally or informally acknowledging them despite repeated requests.
[see Corzine letter: Download file
We previously wrote about this issue in this post:
A cruel hoax – on many levels
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/07/a_cruel_hoax_on_many_levels.html

Travis WolfeRoy Jones of Camden, Co-Chair of South Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

Passaic Great Falls – National Historic Landmark

September 5th, 2008 2 comments

Viewer Warning – last two photo’s may cause illness

[Update: 3/28/11 - The press discovered the garbage problem: Trash piling up at Great Falls; Site was approved in ’09 for historic park

Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Bill Wolfe
Categories: Family & kids, Policy watch, Politics Tags:

Air pollution from Ports a high cancer risk

September 5th, 2008 No comments

Pollution risk twelve hundred (1,200) times cancer risk standard
[Update #2 (1/25/09] I initially posted on this topic on April 9, 2008 and again on September 5, 2008. Today, after almost a year, the Bergen Record finally got around to covering the story, but somehow managed to let DEP off the hook by focus on the Port Authority:
N.J. pushing for restrictions on diesel trucks at ports
http://www.northjersey.com/environment/NJ_pushing_for_restrictions_on_diesel_trucks_at_ports.html
[Update (1/2/09): here is an excellent article that dicusses the national picture of health and environmental threats from ports:Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/97496/
The NJ Clean Air Council recently released the public hearing transcript and their recommendations on controlling air pollution from our ports. We wrote about the Council's April 9, 2008 public hearing on "Improving Air Quality at our Ports and Airports" here:
Experts and Advocates: Pollution from Ports A High Cancer Risk to Urban NJ
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/04/experts_and_advocates_pollutio.html
Here is a link to the Council's full report and hearing transcript.
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AT OUR PORTS & AIRPORTS
Setting an Agenda for a Cleaner Future
http://www.nj.gov/dep/cleanair/hearings/2008hearing_report.pdf
I urge people to read this Report and compare the NJ Clean Air Council's recommendations with the California program.
To highlight the significance of this issue, check out the below excerpt of testimony from the California South Coast Air Quality Management District scientist. This is something you won't hear from DEP or the NJ Clean Air Council.
The public also is not aware of the fact that NJ lacks enforceable cancer risk regulatory standards for air pollution sources. But water and toxic sites cleanup soil standards are based on cancer risk and regulated by DEP based on a one in a million risk standard (for individual lifetime excess cancer risk.)
"In terms of toxics, however, the picture geographically is quite different. A monitoring study the South Coast Air Quality conducted a few years ago, which estimated cancer risks over our region. If we include diesel, we have a very different picture. The average cancer risks in our area are approximately one thousand two hundred in a million is from air toxics. We consider that very significant. Air quality district rules prohibit stationary sources from emitting toxics creating risk in excess of ten in a million for new sources and twenty-five in a million for existing sources so twelve hundred in a million average over the area is considered very high."
Source: Report @ page 14
Some questions that arise out of this Report:
1. Why isn't the public warned and provided information about what NJ's cancer risks are from NJ air and sea ports?
2. Does NJ have as strong a monitoring and regulatory program to control and reduce port emissions as California? If not, why not?
3. Why aren't air pollution cancer health risks regulated to the same health standard as water and soil? (i.e. one in a million risk)
4. Why is air quality modeling and health risk assessment voluntary for permits issued to major air polluters in NJ?
Here is a link to NJ DEP's Air Toxics page for addition information related to these issues:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/airtoxics/
California Program info:
Plan May Ease Air Pollution at Ports
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/06/local/me-ships6
South Coast District Air Quality Management Plan
"The combined Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach including sources such as oceangoing vessels, harbor craft, trains, trucks, and cargo handling equipment represent the largest single source of emissions in the Basin, accounting for 60% of SOx, 27% of NOx, and 6% of PM2.5 in 2023."
[...]
FUNDING AVAIABILITY
The overall costs of implementing the control measures proposed in the Final 2007 AQMP are in the billions of dollars. In-use mobile source fleet modernizations, accelerated retirement of high-emitting vehicles and equipment, alternative fuels and their infrastructure, advanced retrofits, facility modernization, and product reformulations and replacements are among strategies which require significant levels of funding. For illustration purposes, the estimated costs associated with the recently released San Pedro Bay Port’s Draft Clean Air Action Plan and CARB’s Goods Movement Plan targeting ports and goods movement sectors alone are approximately $2 billion dollars and $10 billion dollars, respectively. The costs of implementing the AQMP control measures affecting virtually all source categories in the Basin will add to these estimates. However, the economic values of avoiding adverse health effects are projected to be many times higher than the implementation cost of clean air strategies.
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Executive_Summary.pdf
Full SCAQMD Plan:
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html
EPA Region 9 Progress Report:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/annualreport/05/air.html
Children’s Health
http://134.67.99.14/ncer/childrenscenters/outreach_docs/breath_of_air_trans3.html
Marine Diesel lawsuit
http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2007/marine-diesel-emissions.html

Categories: Policy watch, Politics Tags:

“Dumped on and lied to”

September 4th, 2008 No comments

“We’re a community that’s been dumped on and lied to – my community has lost any confidence in what they’re told by experts or officials because of this. And I can’t blame them.”
Hamilton, NJ Mayor Glen Gilmore

Bill Wolfe

Wow. Why would a Mayor say that? Maybe because of this?
“Last month, town officials were told that crushed concrete used as a roadbed at a planned housing development was tainted with cancer-causing PCBs. The concrete came from the demolition of the old Ford assembly plant in Edison. Adding to the insult, the state [DEP] had known about the pollution since September but failed to notify locals for six months“
See: Bergen Record. “Cleaning up the Cleanup Process in New Jersey“. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/456127/cleaning_up_the_cleanup_process_in_new_jersey/
Prior to this Ford PCB scandal, in the spring of 2004, the Star Ledger wrote several front-page investigative articles on DEP’s performance in cleaning up dozens of highly contaminated chromium sites in Hudson and Essex counties. Those reports disclosed improper behind the scenes influence by industry lobbyists and consultants in weakening DEP’s chromium cleanup standards.
The Wall Street Journal – hardly a paper with a reputation for environmental advocacy – documented gross scientific fraud in the scientific literature used to develop risk assessments and DEP regulatory standards for chromium in NJ [see 12/23/05.Page 1].
All this prompted the Trenton Times to report that “Confidence in DEP Power on Shaky Ground” [March 5, 2006] followed by an editorial titled: “The Watchdog Fails Again” [March 6, 2006].
Without even a mention of this tortured history (and I’m leaving out several other high profile DEP scandals, including the infamous “Kiddie Kollege” daycare mercury poisoning), yesterday, DEP issued a press release touting the adoption of new DEP regulations that mandate either written notice to neighbors within 200 feet or posting of signs on toxic waste sites.
These rules are a long overdue first step in reforming the broken DEP toxic site cleanup program. To say they are too little too late would be way too generous.

Bill WolfeThere are sterner warnings and far more public involvement in EPA cleanup decisions at federal Superfund sites than in NJ DEP cases

According to the DEP press release, the history and origin of the rule is:
“In 2005, a DEP task force launched a series of discussions among groups that included environmental justice advocates, environmental and civic organizations, local health officers and officials, and business and industry leaders. The task force concluded that early dialogue and proactive communications are essential to achieve swift and successful site cleanups.”
According to DEP, the objective of the rule is:
“This public outreach significantly improves how neighbors are kept informed about cleanups and will become an invaluable tool for everyone involved in those cleanups by eliminating misperceptions and speculation that can create conflict and unnecessary delays,” Commissioner Jackson said
[Full text here: http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2008/08_0044.htm
This is deeply misleading on multiple counts. DEP left very important historical facts and legislative history out of that chronology and justification for the new rules.
I am offended by this press release. DEP misleads the public and belittles their legitimate concerns as "misperceptions and speculation". That sure sounds like blaming the public, exactly the approach Mayor Gilmore rejected in the statement quoted above.
And while inventing some history to make the DEP look good, they also disrespect and fail to recognize the leadership of Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, who sponsored the law that mandated that DEP adopt the new notification regulations!
As George Orwell noted in the classic "1984":
"The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons. ... by far the most important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the party."

First of all, DEP did not initiate things - and to claim that DEP somehow promoted "early dialogue and proactive communications" is absurd. DEP was directed by the Legislature to fix multiple gross communication failures, including covering up information.
This new notification rule was prompted by scandals at the WR Grace site in 2005 and the Ford PCB fiasco in 2006. WR Grace is located in Hamilton Township - this debacle is what prompted Mayor Gilmore to say he his community was "dumped on and lied to". The WR Grace and Ford cases led to legislative hearings in June 2005 and June 2006, criminal investigations, and passage of new laws.
Second, DEP distorts the justification for the new notification rule to imply that the purpose of the rule is to address public "misperceptions and speculation". This DEP claim is simply outrageous, Orwellian and unacceptable.
Third, long delays in cleanups are not caused by public "misconceptions and speculation" but by DEP's own mismanagement. A recent US EPA Inspector General's Report found major management problems at DEP. See: EPA REPORT BLASTS NEW JERSEY TOXIC CLEAN-UPS
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/06/epa_report_blasts_new_jersey_t.html
Before the dust had settled on that WR Grace scandal, three more major toxic cleanup fiasco's erupted with repeated massive failures by DEP at the center of the controversy: Ford; American Standard; and Martin Luther King Jr. school. All are located in or nearby Hamilton, and in the Legislative District of Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, then Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
In the Ford case, toxic PCB contaminated soils and debris was disposed of as "clean fill" under new homes, including a day care center. DEP knew about and covered up the problem for over 6 months. Frustrated and angry Hamilton residents were shut out of DEP cleanup decisions at the American Standard site. DEP failed to stop and then covered up the fact that toxic soils had been imported as "clean fill" for the new Martin Luther King, Jr. school. Parents and residents were outraged.

site of demolished Martin Luther King, Jr. school in Trenton, NJ. Imported toxic soils led to the demolition of the partially built school, as a $25 million loss.

This outrage at DEP failures prompted Assemblywoman Greenstein to again hold DEP oversight hearings in June 2006. Based on these hearings, Greenstein then sponsored the notification laws that REQUIRED DEP to issue the regulations DEP touted in yesterday's press release.
For those intersted in the ugly details and legislative history:
1. From the Bergen Record:
"W.R. Grace & Co. closed its insulation factory in the heart of Hamilton Township 12 years ago and gave the site a clean bill of health.
Under new environmental cleanup rules designed to speed the reuse of industrial sites, state [DEP] regulators took the company’s word, never testing an ounce of the property outside of Trenton.
But there was contamination — lots of it. Last year, town officials learned Grace had left behind 15,000 tons of soil riddled with extraordinarily high levels of asbestos.
[...]
“The new poster child for the system’s failings is Hamilton, where asbestos isn’t the only problem.
Last month, town officials were told that crushed concrete used as a roadbed at a planned housing development was tainted with cancer-causing PCBs. The concrete came from the demolition of the old Ford assembly plant in Edison. Adding to the insult, the state [DEP] had known about the pollution since September but failed to notify locals for six months.
State and federal officials have opened criminal probes of both the asbestos and PCB incidents.”
2. From my legislative testimony on June 1, 2006:
“the public, which is perceived as hysterical and a barrier to economic development, was intentionally cut out of the process. All right? So I wanted to talk to the Assemblyman about some of the notification issues that he has. If you put an awning at a gas station, you have more public participation — you get a notice, the property owners; you have a planning board review. If you’re cleaning up hundreds of thousands of gallons of contaminated benzene that’s flowing into somebody’s basement and well, there is no public review — none whatsoever. People need to know that. You have to remedy that statutorily. You cannot rely on DEP.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GREENSTEIN: Thank you.
And I do want to say, Bill, that I appreciate the information
that you provide, and I think there’s a lot of good information there.
MR. WOLFE: I’d like to be a resource. I can work with the
OLS staff, and I’d love to.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GREENSTEIN: Actually, I think we
had a question.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ASSEMBLYMAN GORDON: No, not a
question. I just wanted to thank you for your comments. I think you’ve
raised some really important issues. I, for one, would hope that this
Committee undertakes a comprehensive review of these programs. We
appreciate your input and we look forward to working with you. (page 75)
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/pubhear/ajuaen060106.pdf
3. From my written testimony on June 1, 2006:
“In order to repair these legislative flaws and gaps, the Committee should consider expand the pending McKeon/Greenstein legislative package to:
• Require meaningful public participation in cleanup and redevelopment decisions at large or moderate to high risk sites. Had a public hearing been held on the Ford cleanup plan before decisions were made, perhaps someone would have asked where the contaminated material was being disposed of and this whole costly fiasco would have been prevented;” http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/06_1_6_peer_testimony.pdf

Categories: Hot topics, Law & order, Policy watch, Politics Tags: