WolfeNotes.com

Landfill leachate seep kills all vegetation (at southwestern corner of landfill, between D&R Canal Path and Delaware River).

I came across this DEP whopper while reading the press clips this morning, and it pinned my lie detector meter: DEP: Scary orange goo near the Delaware River is just rust

ALEXANDRIA TWP. – The orange substance leaking from the landfill on the Frenchtown-Milford Road near H.J. Opdyke Lumber is harmless, said a spokesman from the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Larry Ragonese said the bright orange rivulet trickling from the corner of the old Riegel Paper landfill into the Delaware River is rusted iron, not a toxic chemical. “Fortunately, it’s nothing bad,” he said. “It’s a natural occurrence.”

Since when is landfill leachate a “natural occurrence“? On what basis and monitoring data has DEP claimed that this leachate is “nothing bad“? How does DEP know what was disposed of in that landfill? Has the landfill been properly closed in compliance with DEP regulations? What does the groundwater monitoring data say? Have the Delaware River and adjacent streams been sampled (water column and sediments)?

Despite the 95 degree heat and high humidity, I took a little ramble at that landfill today. I walked the perimeter of the landfill, the top of the landfill, the zone between the landfill and the river, a stream corridor just north of the landfill, and the Delaware River frontage. And what I saw was not pretty.

I saw several leachate seeps, that looked to be composed of ferrous metals and oily substances that created sheens on the water. (Landfill leachate is typically composed of a soup of toxic chemicals.) Vegetation adjacent to the seeps was completely dead. Leachate seeps were discharging directly to a stream from stream banks just north of the landfill. Leachate seeps were discharging directly to the Delaware River via overland flow just south of the landfill. Very old sediment control fences were down and totally ineffective. Any landfill cover and/or cap was breached in numerous places by roads, paths, and vegetation. I saw only one groundwater monitoring well, that was located on the eastern edge of the landfill, just off County Route 619, but none between the landfill and the Delaware River on the western landfill perimeter, the likely direction of groundwater flow. The monitoring well had not be sampled for some time (the lock was rusted),  there were no security or public access controls (like a fence), no hazardous cleanup signs posted, and it looked like someone had recently attempted to locate monitoring wells because vegetation had recently been cleared in some areas. There appeared to be numerous violations of DEP regulations.

Based on the above observations and DEP press office “natural” comments, I filed an OPRA request for the groundwater monitoring data, leachate sampling data, the DEP approved landfill closure plan, surface water monitoring data, and recent inspection reports.

We will keep you posted. Below are photos documenting the above observations. See captions for details.

Rusting monitoring well. Lock was rusted and looked like no one had opened it in years. Located on eastern perimeter, not along Delaware River side.

leachate seep kills all nearby vegetation. Old sediment control fence totally useless.

Toxic leachate seep has killed vegetation. There were dozens of similar sites, covering thousands of square feet.

Leachate runoff kills vegetation and discharges directly to Delaware River in background.

Old railroad mileage marker rusts (foreground) - DEP leachate "rust" kills nearby vegetation along southern edge of landfill, just 75 feet from Delaware River and in floodplain.

Oily rusty leachate seeps into stream just north of landfill approximately 200 feet east of Delaware River.

Leachate seeps through stream bank into Delaware tributary just north of landfill.

rusty stream bank from landfill leachate seeps is not "natural".

oily sheen on water in stream from leachate seep. This is not "natural".

what's that item (center of picture, 30 feet in background)?

Let's get a closer look - looks like a barrel - surely nothing "natural".

Yup, its "Lubriplate" Surely no ramble in NJ is complete without coming across a barrel of toxic waste - it's only "natural"!

drums at south western toe of slope, along D&R Canal path by pedestrian bridge

Maybe that's what killed all the natural vegetation in this leachate seep just north of the landfill.

Leachate runs under D&R Canal Path into Delaware River.

leachate runs under D&R Canal Path and kills natural vegetation on its way to the Delaware.

Delaware River, adjacent to landfill. Delaware is important water supply for downriver communities.

Crown Vantage landfill Superfund site, about 1 mile north of Riegal Paper Co. landfill, looking from the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River:

Crown Vantage Superfund site on Delaware River

On April Fool’s Day 2008,  I posted the above photo in my Star Ledger “NJ Voices” column under a Headline:

“Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned“

Well, it’s no joke.

Today’s Star Ledger reports that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  just rebuked the NJ State Police for their slow response in a nuclear drill. (see: N.J. State Police reaction to nuclear disaster emergency drill too slow, FEMA says

TRENTON — In a rare rebuke, federal officials criticized the New Jersey State Police for mistakes they made last month during an emergency drill at the Salem Hope Creek nuclear plant in southern New Jersey.

During a simulated nuclear disaster, it took the State Police 62 minutes to inform the public within 60 miles of the reactors whether to evacuate or seek nearby shelter, about 17 minutes too long for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which said the response was seriously deficient.

So the people living near the nuke plant wouldn’t be notified until over an hour after an accident?

They’d probably be glowing by then.

This poor performance is consistent wth the lousy response to the Gulf, but obviously nuke response must be a lot faster and more aggressive than an oil spill response.

But now that the Gulf disaster has exposed corporate malfeasance and gross government oversight failures, maybe someone will start asking questions about NJ DEP’s chemical and oil spill prevention and emergency response capabilities.

In addition to nuclear plants risks, according to US EPA, NJ has more than 15 chemical plants where an accident would KILL over 100,000 people living nearby. 

DEP Commissioner Martin recently issued a press release touting his new Gulf Spilll Team - maybe someone might call him on the content of those plans to see if DEP can do a little better than the NJ State Police.

In 2005, DEP conducted an emergency response drill testing their oil spill response plans in 13 coastal inlets.

What were the results of that exercise? Has DEP revised plans in light of what they learned in the 2005 exercise?

Has DEP examined the weaknesses in the BP/Coast Guard response to the Gulf disaster? 

Does DEP have adeqaute staff resources and equipment to respond effectively?

Inquiring minds want to know!

It is well known that Governor Christie took over $400 million of Clean Energy Funds paid by ratepayers (you and me) to subsidize renewable energy to cover his tax cuts for the wealthy (see excellent NJSpotlight coverage:

Compromise Budget Fails to Restore Some $400 Million in Clean Energy Cuts –  Administration and Democratic legislators agree not to reinstate funds originally slated for solar and wind power programs

But little known is the fact that Christie’s budget cuts polluter fees and fines and shifts those costs to the taxpayer backed General Fund.

That is the antithesis of NJ’s longstanding “polluter pays” policy.

DEP’s budget amounts to an over $40 million business tax cut for Christie’s business cronies, while shifting these costs to the taxpayers.

The enforcement fine cuts also destroy any credible deterrent effect, and make small DEP fines a cost of doing business. This leads to disaster, as we saw in the Gulf.

As reported by PEER:

[Update: 7/25/10 - I missed this AC Press editotrial when it ran on June 28: DEP's new science advisory board / Noble goal. While I like the fact that it bluntly calls out Jeff Tittel for his spin,  it repeats the same errors and misunderstandings from the news story, concluding with this over the top error:

A scientific advisory board made up solely of members of the environmental community would speak with little authority"

Where on earth did editors get that false understanding? For the record, the SAB has no, none, zero, nada "members of the envrionmental community" - there is one on a Subcommittee. But the SAB is packed with 6 industry reps or industry consultants.

Basing an editorial on misinformation surely missed the key issues, one of which is this inconvenient truth:

3.  The Dupont’s representative on the SAB is identified as a “microbiologist”. But Dr. Gannon does not practice microbiology at Dupont – he is a high level manger and head of Dupont’s global corporate strategy on environmental compliance.

I assure you, Gannon was not appointed to the SAB for his microbiological work and he will not do any microbiology on the SAB.

He is on the SAB to represent Dupont’s strategic corporate interests. Period. And Dupont’s interests in DEP science involve BILLIONS of dollars in NJ liability, as well as BILLIONS more globally as NJ’s scientific work on Dupont toxic pollutants (like PFOA) is used in regulatory work by other states, EPA, and internationally.

Like I said - garbage in - garbage out - in this case, bad sources.]

I’ve been closely following and writing about the new DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB) – including filing a successful lawsuit against DEP - so I was rather surprised by the basic misunderstandings and deep confusion revealed in a story by Mike Miller of the Atlantic City Press:  State DEP advisory panel a mix of science, industry experts

Miller is a good reporter, so the source of the problem is in his sources, not his reporting.  So let’s take a closer look at  just some of the more egregious falsehoods and spin in that story.

On a positive note, it was refereshing to see a scientist honestly acknowledge a major problem, which is the irresponsible reluctance of scientists to enter the public debate on scientific issues, even when those issues are being distorted. Most scientists have hidden behind the protective facade of so called detached science, and that abdication has allowed industry and political hacks to fill the void and manipulate public debate (see “Doubt is Their Product“). Miller writes:

[Rutgers professor and Chair Judith] Weis said people have become more distrustful about science, sometimes because nonscientists have a louder voice when it comes to factious issues such as climate change.

“I suppose the public has. People like Rush Limbaugh have better PR skills than the scientific community. Most scientists would prefer just to do their own research and not get involved in the public arena,” she said.

Thank you professor Weiss – and I hope you continue to have the same integrity in calling out industry scientists on the SAB as you do with Rush Limbaugh.

But from that high note, the story goes steeply downhill and reveals remarkable ignorance and/or deceit. I’ll take them in order.

1. The Business and Industry Association lobbyist quote is set up by a question of whether DEP is “cherry picking data”. NJBIA is portrayed as a “critic” who “often questions the scientific rationale behind regulations”.

“The DEP has had the ability to cherry-pick scientific data and use the most conservative standards as they see fit,” said David Brogan, vice president for environmental policy at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. “Having more people with scientific backgrounds gathering data and using other resources will only help to get a fair and balanced approach to rulemaking.”

Personally, I like Dave Brogan, but he’s no scientist. Brogan is a lobbyist who is well paid to spin and represent the economic interests of his members. For him to call for “fair and balanced” DEP rulemaking is no different than the Fox News and Rush Limbaugh version.  As such, Brogan is a perfect example of exactly the PR problem Weiss correctly targeted.

Substantively, Brogan has managed to conflate and confuse a host of distinct issues. He blends issues of credible quality assured data, to data interpretation, to necessary assumptions that always are required in the absence of data and knowledge, to regulatory policy (which is a blend of science and law), to the legal and institutional issue of regulatory standards.

As Brogan is well aware, there is a huge controversy now raging in the legislature about DEP standards, how standards are set, and whether DEP or the legislature should set them.  Industry lobbyists are seeking to strip DEP of the power to set any standards that are stricter than federal minimums, which would gut NJ’s public health and environmental protections, which have long been – and virtually across the board –  far more stringent than federal minimums.

Brogan is using the SAB to advance that agenda. And The Governor and DEP Commissioner Martin are backing them. This all has zero to do with science and almost everything to do with politics and economics.

Brogan also knows that the SAB explicitly is NOT authorized to consider regulatory issues, under the Administrative Orders that created the SAB.

2. The Builders Association spokesperson repeats Brogan’s mistake on the SAB role in rulemaking, and talks about bringing scientific credibility to DEP regulations.

After getting a chuckle about the Builders and scientific credibility in the same sentence, let’s state the obvious: a) the Builders want to build, everywhere, in a way that maximizes profits; b) DEP and environmental laws sometimes limit how much they can build or impose additional costs on construction that reduces their profits; and c) ergo: this has zero to do with science, and everything to do with land use and economics and political power.

3.  The Dupont’s representative on the SAB is identified as a “microbiologist”. But Dr. Gannon does not practice microbiology at Dupont – he is a high level manger and head of Dupont’s global corporate strategy on environmental compliance.

I assure you, Gannon was not appointed to the SAB for his microbiological work and he will not do any microbiology on the SAB.

He is on the SAB to represent Dupont’s strategic corporate interests. Period. And Dupont’s interests in DEP science involve BILLIONS of dollars in NJ liability, as well as BILLIONS more globally as NJ’s scientific work on Dupont toxic pollutants (like PFOA) is used in regulatory work by other states, EPA, and internationally.

4. Which brings us to serious questions about scientific bias and conflicts of interest (they are two different things).

The Order that created the SAB has vague restrictions on both. However, DEP failed to apply those restrictions in screening and selecting SAB members.

In response to our criticisms, these original restrictions were allegedly tightened in June, but only AFTER the SAB members were already selected.

Now that DEP appointed the SAB, they continue to fail to enforce and implement any ethical restrictions. Instead, DEP has left that all up to the integrity of individual scientists to determine on a case by case basis.

Dupont has inherent bias and deep conflicts of interest, so they never should have been selected on the SAB. And note that it is Mr Gannon who will decide when and if to recuse himself, not DEP or an independent ethics body:

DuPont’s Gannon said the board has a broad membership and strict guidelines about conflicts of interest to prevent industry or political bias. For example, he would abstain from issues that directly affect his business, he said.

In their board applications, several Rutgers professors recognized potential conflicts, namely that their institution or colleagues receive DEP grants for their research.

Earth to Miller: even with a conflict, there is a huge difference between a Rutgers academic scientist and one that works for a major corporate polluter like Dupont. Hello!

5.  Under the Order  that created the SAB, the DEP Commissioner sets the SAB’s issues agenda. The SAB does not select the issues they will work on.

Virtually every source to the story got this basic and important issue very wrong. The SAB is not the forum to debate priorities and select pet issues.

Rutgers scientist Mark Robson, who recently resigned in frustration as head of the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute, reveals his ignorance on this issue:

“I don’t know if we’re going to start with air, water, soil or food,” Robson said. “My impression is that what will be on the table is the science behind the entire suite of things under the DEP’s purview.

The SAB will start when DEP asks them to and work on what DEP asks them to. Period.

But worse, DEP spokesperson inadvertently reveals that DEP has no scientific priorities and no science agenda, in this killer quote from the DEP press office:

“They’re[the SAB] on call for any issue that comes up.”

Any issue that just randomly comes up? Right.

And the token “environmentalist” (who chairs a Standing Committee, and is not on the full SAB) also just doesn’t understand his own role, the role of his Committee, or the SAB and DEP’s role:

Board member Emile DeVito, director of science for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, said he is considering calling his own meeting of the ecological subcommittee he chairs.

DeVito, a trustee for the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, is studying rare plants in the Pine Barrens of Ocean County this month.

“I would like to bring questions to the table rather than allow the political agenda bring issues to the table,” he said.

“One key issue I see on the horizon is if people will focus on solar power, what habitats and land areas do we cover up? There are already 5 square miles of applications to cover up farms with solar panels,” DeVito said. “It would be nice if we could put them in built environments instead of sacrificing natural areas or farms.”

Sorry  Emile, you don’t bring any issues to the table. The issues are assigned to you by the SAB Chair, who gets his assignments from the DEP Commissioner. Read the Order, please. (and we agree with DeVito that soil compaction is a huge problem, but the data suggest its not caused by solar panels. And we also agree that South Jersey’s farms are threatened, but, again, the data show that the threat is not from solar panels. Which prompts the obvious question: why are real causes ignored while solar gets focus?).

[Update: upon reflection, it is actually worse for Devito to raise pet solar/farm preservation issues on which he has both bias and conflicts of interest, than for Gannon of Dupont to raise PFOA. At least PFOA is a legitimate scientific issue.]

And DeVito – similar to Brogan – illustrates an ignorance of the difference between science and policy. The issues involved with locating solar facilities “in built environments” instead of ”sacrificing farmlands” (is that a scientific journal term?) is an energy and land use legal and policy issue. It has very little to do with science. And the science issues are subordinant to the legal and policy framework.

This is embarrassing and shocking, that these fundamental distinctions are just ignored – and by our “best and brighest”, no less.

7. So let’s close where the AC Press story closes – my arrogance meter is pinned:

“The public can’t tell the difference between science and a smokescreen,” he said. “The advisory board can sift out what’s real science.”

No further comment on that. Maybe, just maybe, this is why “the public” resents environmentalists and why the corporations are so successful in manipulating public opinion to create a backlash against “elites”.

The former Chief Scientist for BP Oil is now the chief scientist for the US Department of Energy. 

That’s right, Dr. Steven Koonin, the former Chief Scientist at BP – whose own bio notes that he was responsible for “providing technical advice to senior BP executives” – is the Obama Administration Department of Energy’s chief scientist (title: Undersecretary for Science).

Not only that, but Koonin is one of the world’s leading proponents of a “beyond Strangelovian“ technology scheme known as ”geoengineering” – an absurd “intervention in the climate system”  where aerosols would be injected into the upper atmosphere to dampen sunlight and reduce global warming.

If anything, the man made disaster in the Gulf is an example of technological hubris – of engineers gone wild.

It is the result of a profound arrogance and moral failure to understand or even consider risks to natural systems and human communities caused by technological schemes.

Koonin’s global ”climate intervention” scheme  (which he championed while at BP) would make deep sea oil drilling seem like child’s play.

Another key lesson of the Gulf is what Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse described in an historic Senate speech as (text and video are here)

the revolting specter of an agency of government subservient to – captive to – the industry it is supposed to regulate.  [...]

So the question is, after all those years of corporate control of government in the Bush years, how far-reaching is the insinuation of corporate influence? We know big Pharma wrote the Bush pharmacy benefit legislation. We know big oil and big coal sat down in secret with Dick Cheney to write their energy policy. But down below the decks, down in the guts of the administration’s agencies, how far were the tentacles of corporate influence allowed to reach? How many industry plants are stealthily embedded in the government, there to serve the industry, not the administration or the public.

Revolting specter, for sure.

Yes Dr. Koonin, just how far do those corporate tentacles extend?

Perhaps a little too quiet – an eerie silence before the storm?

I’ve been focused on and writing mostly about Christie Administration deregulation issues. But there is another facet of his right wing agenda that presents a threat to protection of the environment and public health: privatization.

Just where are expansive privatization expectations coming from? Two places. 

1) Governor Christie’s appointment of DEP Commissioner Bob Martin, who made his career privatizing public water systems; and

2)  On March 11, Governor Christie issued Executive Order #17, which created a 5 member Privatization Task Force headed by former Republican Congressman Dick Zimmer . The Task Force held hearings and was required to issue a public Report to the Governor and Legislature by May 31.  That Report has not been issued, but the Governor assumed $50 million in privatization savings in his budget, so there are shoes to drop.

But a litttle historical background is in order before we get to Christie policy and plans.

Last year, the Legislature enacted the Corzine Administration’s privatization plan for toxic site cleanups, known as the “Licensed Site Professionals” program (LSP).  The LSP plan was crafted by then DEP Commissioner (now USEPA Administrator) Lisa Jackson.

Private LSP’s, paid by their corporate polluter clients, now make toxic site cleanup decisions, with little or no DEP oversight and virtually no public knowledge or involvement in cleanup decisions.

The Gulf BP oil blowout illustrates how: 1) corporate profit motives; 2) private control over risky decisions that impact the public; and 3)  lax government oversight and no public involvement, lead to disaster. BP simply made reckless decisions to cut costs. Those profit driven BP decisions are what caused the well blowout.

The LSP program represents hundreds of similar small scale disasters at toxic waste sites. The LSP program provides incentives for corporate polluters to cut corners to reduce cleanup costs. In representing their corporate clients and seeking the cheapest cleanups – with no government oversight or public accountability - the LSP’s shift toxic risks to NJ communities and the environment.  

The LSP program is a horrible model that was so controversial that, during her US Senate Confirmation hearing, Jackson was forced to back away from it and pledge that she would NOT bring any similar LSP/privatization policy to US EPA.

Here’s the excerpt from the hearing: ( Watch CSPAN video of Jackson testimony here):
Question by Committee Chair Senator Barbara Boxer:

Q: Please provide “your views on polluters self certifying that property is clean” (@ time 3:26:45)

A: Lisa Jackson:

“I don’t believe that process [i.e. private certification, as in LSP] has merit at the federal level” (@ time 3:42:43)

Chairman Boxer confirms that Jackson has rejected privatization at EPA and removes any ambiguity at time 3:43:03 by saying:

Q: Boxer: “you don’t anticipate and you do not expect to allow private consultants to certify sites as clean”

A: Lisa Jackson: “NO”

Some now are advocating expanding the LSP privatization model to DEP land use programs (wetlands, flood hazard, and coastal zone permits). Those very programs are now undergoing rollback reviews as a result of the Red Tape Review Report, so there is a serious risk that Christie deregulation and privatization policies could merge and radically dismantle these critical natural resource protection programs. 

And proponents of expanding the LSP model are not just right wing ideologues, but also include Bergen County Democratic Senator Bob Gordon, and many other places in the Democratic party.

Just this week, at a conference of the National Association of Industrial Office Parks (NAIOP), a politically powerful developers lobby, DEP Commissioner Martin reinforced scapegoat myths about DEP’s impact on the economic recession, and continued to stoke extremely dangerous business community expectations. Here’s a flavor of the discussion Martin has with his business cronies:

Terming the new attitude at DEP a “culture change,” Martin explained that while guarding the environment, his agency also plays a key role in economic development. The thrust of the change at DEP includes the message delivered clearly to staffers that, “the applications on your desk right now are jobs, and they can’t be allowed to just sit there,” he said. “We are pushing every day to focus on growing business in the state while simultaneously protecting the environment. And in Chris Christie, we have a governor who ‘gets it’.”

The commissioner explained that his office has been looking at all possible aspects to develop a “transformation agenda, because nobody is happy with DEP—not the business community, the mayors, or the environmentalists.” Among the early items on that agenda is to institute an inclusive stakeholder process “and get back to common sense.”

Covering a broad range of issues, Martin noted that recent measures have included the addition of a new assistant commissioner for economic growth, institution of one-stop permitting, resurrection of the Office of Dispute Resolution, and new emphasis on customer service. He cited clean water, green energy (including wind) as other key issues, and called the Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRP) program “an absolute priority. That program cannot and will not fail.

Heading an expert panel on site remediation, moderator Don Richardson of Environmental Waste Management Associates noted the importance of the ongoing decision-making process for the LSRP program’s final rules. Stephen Santola of Woodmont Properties concurred that LSRP, “cannot be allowed to fail. This has really been a bipartisan program with buy-in from industry and DEP.” He questioned whether the lending community understands the program, and urged that the LSRP concept be expanded into land use.

Attorney Andrew Robins of Giordano Halleran & Ciesla conceded that there have been some misconceptions and a lack of knowledge about LSRP, and perhaps some basis for caution. “I am finding that I have to be a ‘drum major’ for the program,” he said. Robins also applauded improved relations with DEP under the new administration.

“There has been a sea change for environmental issues, industry, and the entire state,” said Lawra Dodge of Excel Environmental Resources. “It has been a long time coming. The regulatory climate for land use has been broken for a long time.”

As part of a panel of Land Use experts, Diana Fainberg of Diana E. Fainberg Inc., lauded a recent administrative order [by Martin]preventing DEP from withdrawing sewer service for reasons of deadlines and other strictures—reversing a bill vetoed by former Gov. Jon Corzine

While DEP Commissioner Martin testified to the legislature during DEP budget hearings that he had no privatization plans “at this time”, he also has said the Governor is the boss – and his testimony preceded EO 17 and the Privatization Task Force Report.

With the pretext of the Governor’s declared ”fiscal emergency”,  rabid ideological support and the experience of DEP Commissioner Martin, virtually anything is possible (despite the fact that DEP’s budget is about 80% from federal funds, permit feees, and enforcement fines, so privatization would provide minimal reductions of General Fund appropriations, could jeopardize loss of federal funds, and increase taxpayer burdens).

Thus far, the DEP related privatization issues that have been broached publicly are expanded LSP program for land use permit programs, and privatization of the parks.

On May 5, the Star Ledger wrote a story that opened with a revealing question:  “A Starbucks in Stokes State Forest?”

The state Department of Environmental Protection and Gov. Chris Christie’s administration are in discussions about having private vendors, rather than state personnel, manage state forests and parks.

“We are barely getting by this year with enough funding to run the parks, so we are looking for ways to ensure that our parks stay open and that all residents of New Jersey have an opportunity to be able to use the parks and recreation sites,” said DEP Commissioner Bob Martin today.

Most recently, in a June 6 Atlantic City Press article, Amy Cradic, DEP Assistant Commissioner for parks, confirmed that privatization was being planned:

Cradic also said the DEP is trying to offer more services through privatization. New Jersey residents will find, for example, more kayaking and bicycling concessions than in past years, and the DEP is seeking more proposals for private concessions, she said.

The debate on privatization seems to have gone underground, and I am not aware of any groups publicly working in opposition to expanded privatization schemes at DEP.

Given the context, that is not a healthy situation.

You know the drill.

Bayway Refinery, Linden NJ (ConocoPhillips)

[Update: 7/4/10: ahem!. Confirming my point. Lessons for NJ here: BP Texas Refinery Had Huge Toxic Release Just Before Gulf Blowout

In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank in the Gulf, BP has insisted that the incident, the nation's worst environmental disaster, was a disastrous but unusual misstep for a company that has done much in recent years to change its ways.

But a look at BP's record in running the Texas City refinery adds to the mounting evidence that the company's corporate culture favors production and profit margins over safety and the environment. The 40-day release echoes in several notable ways the runaway spill in the Gulf. BP officials initially underestimated the problem and took steps in the days leading up to the incident to reduce costs and keep the refinery online.]

ABC TV Eyewitness news ran a killer story tonight on a pattern of “serious safety and pollution violations“ at the ConocoPhillips Bayway refinery in Linden, NJ.  At about 250,000 barrels per day processing capacity, it is the largest on the east coast.

The ABC story leads with a recognition that lax government oversight and BP cutting corners on safety and environmental rules were factors that led to the Gulf disaster. ABC reports:

[Bill Wolfe] “You’ve got safety risks posed because of lax government oversight and profit motives to drive the facility and maximize its production.”

We have been writing about those issues here for some time, and even President Obama admittted as much in his Oval office address Tuesday night:

“Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility—a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it’s now clear that the problem there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency — Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. And his charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog — not its partner.

As far as I know, for the first time, Governor Christie was asked by a reporter about his Executive Order #2 which is designed to provide “regulatory relief” and “waivers” from environmental requirements.

I don’t know which quotes were more absurd: Christie’s lame response or the oil company’s “no comment” dodge. ABC forced Christie to comment:

“Environmentalist Bill Wolfe spent 13 years at DEP. He says the massive spill in the gulf occured because BP cut corners on safety while the regulators looked the other way.

Wolfe says Governor Christie is making the same mistake by issuing Executive Orders that call for immediate relief from regulatory burdens and waivers from regulations.

[Wolfe] “It will make government facilitate, not regulate – actually promote the interests of the polluters – protect the polluters, not the people of the state”.

[Governor Christie] ” Our environmental policies so far have been very progressive … I don’t know where you’re getting that from, but there’s none of that stuff going on”

(Jim Hoffer, ABC reporter] “Your Executive Order, where you call for less regulation”

[Governor Christie] “No, what we call for is common sense regulation. We don’t call for less regulation“

 Watch it: Scroll down until you find “Lax regulation at Bayway refinery in NJ“

(ps – I got detained by Linden police for almost an hour for taking the above photo. The ConocoPhillips security guard falsley claimed that I trespassed on their property. I never left the public sidewalk, as my photo’s revealed. As a result, police refused to press charges. Damn, a false arrest charge might have funded my retirement!)

Christie was obviouslty flummoxed by and unprepared for the question from ABC’s Hoffer and equally shocked by the comeback by Hoffer.

Christie feels completely immune from criticism on envrionmental policy. Gotta figure NJEF support has lots to do with that, as does a deferential NJ press corps.)

Commissioner Martin Out of Touch With DEP Data and Global Warming Plan

Yesterday, DEP issued a press release touting a new 11 state regional initiative to address the transportation sector’s global warming emissions.

It tripped my spin detector beause it also had a claim about creating ”green jobs”.

Just the day before, I slammed Commissioner Martin for appointment of a new Assistant Commissioner who allegedly would focus on “green jobs”, so I though the release was political cover for that.

So I read the DEP release closely (having previously written about DEP’s emissions inventory), and noted that not only did it have little to nothing to do with “green jobs”, but it read like a cut and paste job from the press release issued by Georgetown Climate Center.

So I did a little fact checking, in keeping with my promise to give this Commissioner no quarter.

Minor plagiarism can be expected and tolerated from the DEP press Office, but not when it makes mistakes on the data or science. Especially when the Commissioner’s quote contains a fact error on an issue as significant as global warming emissions.

Commissioner Martin has ignored DEP’s own Global Warming Plan; called DEP science “poor, not organized, anecdotal at best“; called the BPU Energy Master Plan “the worst analysis” he’d ever seen; and repeatedly insisted that DEP decisions must be based on “facts and science” (and always stated in a context that implies that prior DEP decisions have not been based on facts and science). So obviously, Martin’s claims warrant scrutiny.

If he’d read DEP’s own emissions inventory and Plan, Martin would discover that DEP’s Global Warming Plan emissions inventory finds that the transportation sector is the largest and has the greatest opportunity for emissions reductions. Martin should be touting this emissions inventory as the best in the Region and a model for other states.

But oops, he can’t do that because he not only has shelved DEP’s Global Warming Plan and fired the head of the Office that developed it, he killed the DEP green house gas emissions inventory proposed rules! (see this for DEP’s proposal Martin killed).

So, let’s get to the embarassing fact error in Martin’s quote. Martin stated (he meant “sector” not “factors” but that’s no big deal – give Martin some slack,  after all he has no training, and it seems obvious that he makes statements and issues press releases without scientific vetting):

“We’ve identified that 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in this state are caused by transportation factors.’’

Georgetown made this claim about the transportation sector:

The transportation sector is responsible for about 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States.

According to DEP’s own Global Warming Response Act Plan, transportation accounts for 35% (net) and 49% of gross emissions (See Figure ES on page 7).

So it is obvious that Martin never read his own Agency’s Plan, cut and pasted the Georgetown regional estimate, and has made a fact error in the process!

Reminds me of the BP’s Gulf oil drilling Plan, which was obviously a cut and past job from Alaska, because it listed “Sea Lions, Seals, Sea Otters [and] Walruses” as “Sensitive Biological Resources” in the Gulf, suggesting that portions were cribbed from previous Arctic exploratory planning.

So Martin is going down a BP road.

Now if  the press and legislators also would fact check and hold Martin accountable, we might make some progress!

(ps -  I also checked out the BPU Energy master Plan. According to BPU EMP, in year 2010, transportation sector accounts for 40.2%  (See Table 1, page 20.)

 Either way, it is NOT 30%!  

It also is interesting to note that BPU and DEP have significant differences is basic data, like actual currrent and 1990 baseline GHG emissions and in projected emissions scenarios.