Back in 1975, when NY City was in financial crisis, then President Ford threatened to veto a Congressional bailout. The move triggered widespread outrage, and this famous headline on the cover of the NY Daily News: Ford to City: Drop Dead.

Governor Christie has taken a page out of history and prompted this far tamer Asbury Park Press story headline (prompting a critical editorial: “Stop Stalling on Bay bill“):

Gov. Christie: No money for tackling Barnegat Bay pollution

In addition to failing to support financial investments, Christie and Republican party politics have killed a package of bills designed to reduce nutrient pollution from fertilizers on a  statewide basis, (S1411), require the repair of stormwater basins in Barnegat Bay, and require that DEP adopt a cleanup plan (called a “TMDL”) for Barnegat Bay.

Ocean County Republican Freeholders flat out opposed such efforts during August legislative hearings. Today, the Asbury Park Press reported that the Governor said he spoke with Ocean Freeholders about the Bay, so the issue appears to be a partisan one.

And the Republicans in the legislature have joined this partisan political game by linking the bills to the Christie municipal spending cap “tool kit” package. Per the APP:

Tool kit protest stalls movement of Barnegat Bay bill

That makes DEP Commissioner Bob Martin’s long delayed “comprehensive plan” to restore the Bay an unfunded, toothless, bad joke – DOA and a political football.

NJ Deputy Attorney General Hamner packs it in as DEP officials (right) walk out of hearing on Friday in State House. (stenographer and hearing officer on left)

DEP’s Chief Nuclear Engineer removed and “put in a broom closet” for disclosing safety risks at the oldest US nuclear power plant.

NJ State officials blocked the open testimony of nuclear whistleblower Dennis Zannoni at a Friday State House hearing.

After more than 3 years of retaliation and delay by the State, Zannoni was finally scheduled to testify under oath about his criticism of serious safety problems at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, and a pattern of DEP retaliation that ensued for those public disclosures.

DEP retaliation even included trumped up charges – redolent of Soviet Gulag strategy – of state vehicle abuse to support a 6 month suspension.

Zannoni had criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relicensing process. He claimed that important safety issues were ignored, poorly addressed, and/or covered up during an industry biased relicensing process.

Since he made those disclosures more than 3 years ago, some of Zannoni’s claims have been vindicated by the recent discovery of radioactive tritium leaks at the Oyster Creek plant. 

Oyster Creek is the nation’s oldest nulclear power plant, part of a generation of 1960’s designed facilities dubbed “Zombie Nukes” by safety advocates (see “NJ’s Oyster Creek a Poster Child for “Zombie Nuke Plants”

Shockingly, the Attorney General’s Office and Department of Environmental Protection threatened to have Zannoni’s family members and invited observers physically ejected from the State House hearing by State Police.

After the Zannoni observers questioned and declined to comply with that threat, State officials reconsidered the wisdom and likely embarrrassing repercussions of that repressive move, and did not call State Police to clear the State House hearing room.

Instead, after a legal debate about whether the State legally had the authority to close the hearing to public observers, state officials abruptly left the room in protest.

The State move ended the hearing and prevented Zannoni from providing testimony on his side of the story.

The State claimed that this hearing – which was to provide a forum for sworn whistleblower testimony on the State’s retaliation for disclosures of Oyster Creek safety risks – was a private labor contract dispute that was closed to invited public observers and the press.

This claim is absurd on its face, because the case involves DEP retaliation for criticism of NRC and public disclosures of safety risks.

In retaliation for his public disclosures,  Zannoni was removed as DEP’s Chief Nuclear Engineer and “put in a broom closet”.

Obviously, the Zannoni case is a significant public matter, not a private contract dispute. His case involves both the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech rights and retaliation for classic whistleblower law “protected activity” .

We wrote briefly about the Zannoni case in this broader post on the politicization of DEP science.

National Public Radio’s (NPR) “Living on Earth” program covered the Zannoni story in a piece on former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson’s EPA confirmation.

The Corzine Administration’s DEP head Lisa Jackson retaliated against Zannoni (click on to read/listen to “Jackson’s Job in Jersey” by NPR reporter Jeff Young). Here’s an excerpt from the NPR transcript:

Jackson also faces criticism from some who worked for her in New Jersey. One scientist resigned because she felt Jackson had ignored science about the carcinogen chromium. Jeff Ruch directs PEER, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which compiled a list of worker complaints about Jackson. Ruch says they’re similar to complaints he hears from federal employees at the Bush EPA.

RUCH: Retaliation against whistleblowers, marginalization of science, a penchant for secrecy. If that’s the management style she brings to EPA it will not be the change we need.

YOUNG: Ruch points to the case of whistleblower Dennis Zannoni. Zannoni was the agency’s top nuclear energy official. When he raised concerns about the safety of the Oyster Creek facility ”the oldest nuclear power plant in the country” he soon found himself off the nuclear beat.

ZANNONI: One day, January 30, 2007, I was removed without reason from my position as chief nuclear engineer and pretty much put in a broom closet in the department. And it’s been like that for two years.

Here’s how the most recent episode of the remarkable Zannoni saga went down on Friday, November 19, 2010.

We became aware of the 10 am Friday State House hearing and chose to attend to support Zannoni, bear witness, and hold state officials publicly accountable.

I entered the empty hearing room in the State House at 9:40 am. Shortly after my arrival, the hearing officer arrived (clarification: the room was “empty”, except for the stenographer).

Before the hearing started and was on the record, Deputy Attorney General Hamner entered the room and immediately protested my presence and taking photos.

DAG Hamner then asked me to leave the room.

I questioned his authority to order my removal and declined to leave.

I then introduced myself, advised DAG Hamner and the hearing officer of who I was and outlined my objectives and public interest reasons for being there. I then said that Mr. Zannoni’s lawyers needed to be involved in this discusion and that it should occur on the hearing record.

Other observers then entered, including members of Mr. Zannoni’s family and ocean county antinuclear activists. These folks had attended prior hearings without objection by the State.

Zannoni's family members, supporters, and public observers discuss whether to comply with the State's demand to leave

The hearing began.

The DAG stated his objections to public observers and said the hearing was limited to direct participants in the case. The State took the position that this was a private contract dispute.

Zannoni’s lawyer objected and outlined the free speech and whistleblower issues in the case. He emphasized that this made the case inherently of significant public interest. He expressed his “shock” by the State’s arguments and attempts to suppress his clients testimony and to remove public observers.

He indicated his intent to file a motion in Superior Court to litigate the question of whether the State could close the hearing to public observers and the press.

After a round of debate, and private caucuses among the various parties, the hearing officer entered the room and strangley announced that the hearing was “adjourned”.

In other in a pattern of unusual bad faith moves in this case, DAG Hamner requested an “adjournment” in an off the record, private discussion with the hearing officer. Without even consulting Zannoni’s attorney or going on the record, the DAG’s request was granted and the hearing was adjourned.

I was told by one fellow observer that the hearing officer indicated to her that the State only had a problem with one specific observer: me.

Immediately after the hearing ended, Zannoni supporters walked to Governor Christie’s office in a protest gesture in support of Mr. Zannoni and as a demand to open the hearing and stop the DEP coverup and retaliation which has effectively destroyed Mr. Zannoni’s promising career as DEP’s 15+ year Chief Nuclear Engineer.

[Update: 11/23/10 – I just re-read this an neeed to make a few clarifications: PEER does not represent Zannoni. I was not invited to the hearing by Zannoni, a colleague forwarded an email by Zannoni inviting the public. The threat to use the State Police was made by the representative of the Office of Employee Relations. I assumed that this was a DEP Office, but it may be Department of Personnel. The “hearing officer” is a mediator. I have not been involved in this case or the prior hearings and have read only a portion of the second hearing transcript. My understanding is that the disciplinary charges agaisnt Zannoni were initiaited after his whistleblowing episode, and therefore asume that are pretextual, but have not reviewed any documents or supporting evidence. The only knowledge I have is from media reports, I have not spoken with Zannoni and met him for the first time at the hearing.]

Zannoni's family, supporters, and Oyster Creek opponents ask for Christie to stop the retaliation and coverup.

We will keep you posted as events develop.

I am travelling today and will be off the grid for the weekend at a retreat at the Blue Mountain Center in the Adirondacks, so will be unable to write and post.

But, I just learned that a late Friday afternoon delicately phrased DEP press release announced that Dupont withdrew the “permit by rule” application – the one that drew vehement protest by Pompton Lakes residents.

Organized, informed, and passionate residents kicked Dupont’s ass.

They shamed DEP.

Let this case be a model on how to win battles with powerful corporations and government.

I opened my testimony at Monday night’s hearing and closed my last post with this statement:

If they [Dupont] had any integrity or social responsibility, Dupont would have already agreed to withdraw this application.

But, that’s not likely so folks should contact DEP Commissioner Bob Martin and EPA Regional Administrator Judy Enck and demand that they enforce the cleanup laws, fulfill their commitments to restore transparency and accountability, and deny Dupont’s request.

Lets get Dupont moving with cleanup, not coverup. 

On Wednesday, Dupont withdrew their application – obviously they realized that not only was it a public relations nightmare, but it blatently violated state and federal laws and would have been killed by either DEP or US EPA.

When people are watching and actively engaged, no way corporations and government get away with this kind of BS.  

This is just the beginning of the battles on enforcement of RCRA and other cleanup violations by Dupont.

This victory in preventing further harm and corporate control by Dupont can become the foundation to build upon larger victories that lead to real cleanup of Pompton Lakes and compensation for suffering residents.

Gas Glut Renders LNG Ports an “All But Impossible Business Model”

[Update 2″ 11/21/10 – as predicted, the Star Ledger took the bait and printed the DEP’s spin as fact (unrebutted). Even worse, they gave the Gov. credit for killing two other LNG facilities  – totally wrong. Those were killed by market forces, not by the Governor:

Previously, Atlantic Sea Island Group planned a $1.7 billion facility 19 miles offshore Sandy Hook and Exxon Mobil wanted to build a $1 billion floating LNG terminal 20 miles off Asbury Park.

Both companies withdrew their applications after Christie pledged in April to oppose all offshore LNG projects.

Update 1: 11/18/10 - surprise, surprise!: ExxonMobil scraps proposed floating LNG port offshore New Jersey

ExxonMobil said it is suspending efforts to build a $1 billion floating LNG import terminal about 20 miles off New Jersey’s coast.

The company’s decision on its BlueOcean Energy project is the latest in a string of US LNG import proposals scrapped by developers as shale production has flooded the market with cheap supply.

“The natural gas supply and demand outlook for the region has changed since the BlueOcean Energy project was launched in 2007,” spokeswoman Rachael Moore said in an email Wednesday. “As a result, ExxonMobil is putting on hold further permit work while we evaluate the range of options for supplying natural gas to the region

Here’s the latest counter-spin from Liberty, but note that there is no independent analysis here, just merely the self interested promotional statements by Liberty: Location will help New Jersey port survive bleak LNG market: Liberty – this is basically just a PR rebuttal of prior bad market news]

DEP just issued a press release announcing NJ’s intervention in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) review of a proposed pipeline to a proposed off shore Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facility known as “Liberty”.

DEP touts Governor Christie’s threat to exercise his veto power under the Deepwater Port Act to kill the project outright.

But Christie is merely playing politics, getting favorable media and faux “green” accolades in the wake of his recent embarrassing controversial global warming denial comments.

And my bet is that the press and some environmental groups will fall for it hook, line, and sinker and trip all over themseves in soundbites of praise of the Governor’s courage and environmental leadership in protecting the NJ coast. (of course, while pulling punches or providing cover for numerous Christie anti-environmental initiatives, including those directly related to natural gas and coastal protection he touts in the Liberty LNG policy).

The Liberty LNG project is DOA anyway.  In Christie’ faux Jersey Tough Guy talk: It ain’t gonna happen.

But Christie hypocritcally supports other viable natural gas projects that will do extreme harm to NJ.

These harmful Christie policies include , ironically, joining the Obama Administration in undermining the Delaware River Basin Commission’s moratorium on fracking in the Delaware River watershed.

Christie’s DEP also has entered sweetheart deals with the ongoing construction of the Tennessee Gas Company’s pipeline through the heart of the NJ Highlands.

Meanwhile, the huge glut of North American natural gas as a result of the new “hydro-fracking” technology has completely changed the economic assumptions that supported the economic viabilty of LNG ports.

As I wrote on September 24, 2010, here are the views of gas industry’s analysts:

More US LNG projects scrapped as economics become less favorable

 One by one, developers of US LNG import terminals pulled the plug this summer as overabundant domestic natural gas production turned what had been a challenging outlook for imported gas into an all but impossible business model. (full article here)  

We are not fooled by symbolic gestures.

[Update 2: I just noted that several environmental groups also are seeking to intervene in the FERC process for Liberty. At least one of those groups, NJ Environmental Federation, has secured a commitment – in exchange for their endorsement – from the Goveror to kill off shore LNG. The Gov. has pledged to do that. So, why the need to intervene in a dead project? Why waste scare legal resources?  Doesn’t sound like there’s much trust in the Gov.’s commitment.]

Pompton Lakes is a Communty At the Breaking Point

Vojo Congura tells his story to DEP – he wasn’t asking permission to be used as a passive instrument of peace. He was an agent actively demanding justice!

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group.”  ~~~  Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[Update: 11/18/10 – watch New Green Media video of public hearing: “Pompton Lakes Residents Fight Back” ~~~ end update]

Against a backdrop of religious iconography, Monday night DEP held a public hearing that exposed moral depravity and again raised the question: Does Dupont own DEP?

Why would DEP even consider – no less agree with – billion dollar corporate giant Dupont’s request to save a few thousand dollars on groundwater monitoring costs in an effort to be even less accountable to the people of the community Dupont has poisoned?

Just the opposite should be happening. Dupont should be forced to expand soil and groundwater monitoring to:

• identify the sources of groundwater pollution, which an Oct. 10 EPA letter admitted remain unknown after 22 years of work at the site;
• determine the presence of some of the 500 unregulated chemicals that DEP has found in NJ public water supplies, and
• test for pollution at over 200 known contaminated locations on the Dupont site that have not yet been cleaned up (DEP calls them “areas of concern”).

I usually write wonky policy stories, and try to use photos or stories about people with integrity, and only as necessary to support the policy arguments. In fact, I sometimes criticize main stream jounalists for lazily using the emotional manipulation of visual images and human interests stories as an excuse for analysis and real investigative journalism.

But the stories I heard (again) from residents on Monday night’s DEP hearing were compelling and need to be told.

Vojo Congura’s two kids had to watch their 46 year old mom suffer and die an agonizing death from cancer.

They now fear for their own health and don’t go in the basement any more.

Vojo’s home borders the Dupont property.

Before he found out about the Dupont toxic pollution, he invested his life’s savings in his home. He made improvements, expecting to retire on the increasing value of his only asset.

In 2008, his home was valued at $600,000 – but now he can’t sell for $150,000, a quarter of that.

Insead of a comfortable retirement, he got something else from Dupont.

His wife is dead, family suffering, and his life’s savings, hopes and dreams smashed.

All as a result of Dupont – who has poisoned his home and he believes killed his wife – with toxic chemicals that are migrating off the Dupont site.  Here’s what Vojo advised DEP to do:

“step on their throats like they stepped on ours.”

And Vojo Congura is not the only one destroyed and suffering in Pompton Lakes.

If they had any integrity or social responsibility, Dupont would have already agreed to withdraw this application.

But, that’s not likely so folks should contact DEP Commissioner Bob Martin and EPA Regional Administrator Judy Enck and demand that they enforce the cleanup laws, fulfill their commitments to restore transparency and accountability, and deny Dupont’s request.

Lets get Dupont moving with cleanup, not coverup.

Dupont’s consultant Steve Rollard of O’Brien & Gere (L) explains Dupont’s request. He has worked behind the scenes with DEP (R) and heads up Team Dupont (the wholly owned subsidiary, DEP site remediation program).