Archive

Archive for October, 2012

In Praise of “The Holdovers”

October 16th, 2012 1 comment

Will Christie Canned Canal Commissioners Go Out With A Bang or a Whimper?

What's around the bend at the D&R Canal Commission?

  • In making the nominations, the governor did not give any reasons for the changes. The current commissioners are “serving in a hold-over capacity until Governor Christie named commissioners,” said Sean Conner, a spokesman. Hunterdon County Democrat 9/26/12)
  • The different roles of the canal – as a water supply system, a recreational site, historic site, natural area, and means of enhancing urban areas – are not to be ranked in importance so that compromises can be made. Compromises do not have to be made at all; accommodation of equal importance of each use is the guide. (D&R Canal State Park Master Plan)

The rain began shortly before the end of yesterday morning’s monthly meeting of the D&R Canal Commission, a dreary ending to the impending “creative destruction” of the current Commission.

After seeking to abolish the Commission early in his tenure – a move blocked by strong public opposition and the Legislature –  Governor Christie instead now seeks to sack and replace the 4 current Commissioners and fill 4 vacancies, for a clean sweep (see:  Gov. Christie’s Retaliatory Massacre at the D&R Canal Commission).

The Governor’s folly was severely criticized by long time Canal advocates and Commission observers, who passionately described the Governor’s move as a loss of irreplaceable institutional memory and deep knowledge and experience of the Canal.

Members of Commissions and governing bodies typically have staggered terms to avoid exactly this problem.

Wholesale replacement of the entire Commission was opposed by three Commissioners themselves, who urged the public to contact their Senators and urge that the Governor’s slate of nominees be revised so that some current members could remain to provide continuity and experience in Commission affairs.

I urged the Commissioners not to go gentle into that good night“, – to “rage against the dying of the light” – poetry worthy of the moment:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, 
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

In other matters, the substantive agenda item of most importance was whether the outgoing Commission members would initiate a planning process to update the Master Plan and whether that update would be a comprehensive one or limited to and focused on Bull’s Island.

At the outset of this discussion, the Commissioners received highly misleading legal advice from DAG Jablonksi (who is leaving also) regarding the Commission’s planning powers.

Jablonski created the mis-impression that a Master Plan update had to be a comprehensive effort. This lead the Commissioners to reject  that as infeasible due to a staff deficit to do the planning work and their impending departure and replacement.

Acting Chairman Loos concluded “we are not capable of this [work] and extensive outreach” and recommended that the Update be revisited in 2013 by the new Commissioners.

I then rose to object and advise that the DAG failed to mention important planning powers to amend the Master Plan (“or portion thereof“) in lieu of a comprehensive update. This would enable a targeted planning effort on the future of Bull’s Island. Here the applicable satutory language, in boldface:

13:13A-13. Master plan for physical development of park; review of State projects, permits.

13. a. The commission shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and, after a public hearing, or public hearings, and pursuant to the provisions provided for in subsection 13 b. of this act, adopt a master plan or portion thereof for the physical development of the park, which plan may include proposals for various stages in the future development of the park, or amend the master plan.

As I wrote:

The current D&R Canal State Park Master Plan is 23 years old, last updated and adopted in May 1989.

The Master Plan provides an excellent historical overview, assessment of current conditions, and a vision for the Park’s future. The Plan explains the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies with involvement in the Park, and provides a resource inventory of the Park.

The Vision, principles, and objective adopted by the Plan (p. 31) are particularly important and relevant. The Plan emphasizes the unique nature of a linear park.

The Plan recognizes that despite the multi-uses of the Park, there is a special need for “serenity and separation from the man-made world”. To assure that serenity,  the Plan explicitly rejects compromising the protection of designated uses by competing uses.

The principle and strong sense of separation from man-made activities in the rural portions of the Park are core values.

Of particular relevance to Bull’s Island debate is this principle:

To the extent that it is practical, the Canal Park is an area that should be maintained in its natural state. […]

We welcome a planning process that focuses on maintaining Bull’s Island in its natural state.

I urged the Commissioners to engage a planning process for Bull’s Island BEFORE departing “into that good night”. The policy issue could be framed and planning methods defined for the next Commission.

The policy issue would be whether to designate the northern tip as a Natural Area, as the southern portion of the Island currently is designated.

The planning methods would focus on forest ecology and natural characteristics, including the tip of the Island’s importance in maintaining the structural integrity of the Canal as a water supply source.

I praised the current Master Plan, particularly the enlightened principle that “the park must retain a degree of serenity and separation from the man-made world” and the overall approach of the plan to advancing the various principles and objectives.

Typically, planners must weigh and balance competing or conflicting objectives.

The Canal Master Plan is unusual in how it explicitly rejects this balancing framework in principle.

Principle:

As a multi-use resource, each of the Canal Park’s primary roles must be given equal weight. 

The different roles of the canal – as a water supply system, a recreational site, history site, natural area, and means of enhancing urban areas – are not to be ranked in importance so that compromises can be made. Compromises do not have to be made at all; accommodation of equal importance of each use is the guide. (@ p.32 – emphases mine)

I advised the Commisioners that DEP’s proposed plan to cut trees to protect recreational users would compromise other critical Master Plan objectives and uses, including maintaining the Island as a natural area and protecting water supply, a clear violation of a core principle of the Plan which is to reject the notion of ranking and balancing and compromising objectives!

If the Commisioners would initiate a planning process, that would do damage control on the ultimate DEP plan for cutting trees and send a clear expectation and message to the new Commissioners: Don’t Mess With Bull’s Island!

Of course, this was all lost on Commissioner Knights, a corporate developer by trade who touted his approach to seeking “balance” – a concept the Master Plan rejects in Principle!

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Chasing Ice

October 13th, 2012 No comments

Capturing Our Disappearing Glaciers

I’m lost for wordswatch James Balog, extraordinary nature photographer, interviewed on Bill Moyers:

At tremendous risk to his own safety, Balog has been documenting the erosion of glaciers in Switzerland, Greenland, Iceland, and Alaska. Now he joins Bill to share his amazing photos, discoveries, and self-discoveries –  including his transformation from climate change skeptic to true believer, and his mission to capture footage of these destructive environmental consequences before it’s too late. Balog’s soon-to-be-released film, Chasing Ice, is a breathtaking account of climate change in action.

“What made me a skeptic 30 years ago was that I didn’t have it in my head that it was possible that our species, homo sapiens, was capable of so profoundly altering the basic physics and chemistry of the planet,” Balog tells Bill. “And of course the revelation that we can alter the physics and chemistry so profoundly is something that has just emerged in the scientific community in the past ten or 15 years… It’s a really revolutionary idea.”

Watch the trailer to his movie, “Chasing Ice”, which opens November 9 in New York.

Visit his website and check out his photo gallery – pick up a copy of his book “Ice: Portraits of the World’s Vanishing Glaciers”

Don’t die before your time.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

GAO Report Finds EPA Fails To Control Industrial Water Polluters

October 13th, 2012 No comments

 Industrial Pollution Limits & Technology Not Updated Since the 1980’s

 

Given that millions of NJ residents drink water from rivers that receive industrial wastewater discharges, you might want to think about this next time you turn on your tap.

Last week, I focused on serious flaws in DEP regulations and permit programs, noting:

I forgot to mention that at the same time DEP enforcement priorities and staffing are shifting to “get more done with partnerships”, that DEP is almost 3 years behind in issuing the mandatory annual Report required by the Clean Water Enforcement Act (CWEA). (Why is there no legislative oversight or press scrutiny of that?)

But many of the same problems in DEP regulatory oversight are mirrored at the federal level at US EPA.

In response to my posts, a Washington DC colleague sent me a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) Report  that makes similar observations, blasting US EPA’s industrial wastewater control program under the Clean Water Act.

According to beltway trade publication, Inside EPA, E&E Reporter:

EPA has failed to fully tackle industrial polluters — GAO

Annie Snider, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, October 11, 2012

U.S. EPA likely has not been cracking down on industrial water pollution as hard as it should have, due to a flawed process for reviewing effluent guidelines, a government watchdog agency said yesterday.

The two-phase process EPA uses to decide which guidelines to review means the majority of industries never get an adequate look, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is supposed to annually review guidelines for pollutants being discharged from industrial facilities such as factories and wastewater treatment plants in order to decide whether new information about the pollutants’ dangers or about technologies available to decrease them warrants lower limits.

But most guidelines have not been updated since the 1980s or 1990s. Moreover, in recent years, EPA’s focus has shifted from point sources — such as the industrial facilities covered by these effluent guidelines — to nonpoint sources such as agricultural and urban runoff, which are now responsible for most pollution making its way into waterways. Staff levels for the effluent guidelines program have been cut 40 percent, EPA officials told GAO.

(sorry no link to the complete E&E Reporter story, it’s a subscription service – but you can read the full GAO Report – it provides an excellent background and history of  the Clean Water Act’s industrial effluent program requirements and EPA’s implementation efforts).

GAO found a number of significant flaws, particularly regarding EPA failure to monitor pollution discharges, to update data or correct errors in industry data, to  incorporate advances in treatment technology, and to ratchet down on industrial NPDES permits for discharges of toxic pollutants.

The Clean Water Act requires that these industrial pollution permits reflect “the best available control technology” and the EPA is required to review and upgrade these technologies annually. So these are massive and fundamental failures by EPA to properly regulate industrial dischargers, particularly some of the most toxic pollution.

The water pollution control permits (NJPDES) for many of these facilities  are governed by the flawed industrial effluent guidelines targeted in the GAO Report. According to DEP’s most recent CWEA Report, DEP regulates 640 point source discharges to NJ waters.

Lax permit pollution limits and failure to update permits could explain the apparent contradiction I discussed last week: high permit compliance rates but declining environmental quality. As I noted, the answer to that is stricter permits and enforcement.

So NJ water quality and our drinking water are put at significant risk by these EPA and DEP regulatory failures.

Here are some of the more significant and troubling findings from the GAO Report:

EPA documents and some experts we contacted also stated that data collected in the Toxics Release Inventory are useful to identify toxic discharges. Nevertheless, according to the agency and experts, these inventory data have limitations that may cause EPA to either overestimate or underestimate the relative toxicity of particular industrial categories. The limitations they identified include the following:

Limitations in Hazard Data May Have Caused EPA to Overlook Industrial Categories 

The two sources EPA relies on during its initial screening process— discharge monitoring reports and the Toxic Release Inventory—have limitations that may affect the agency’s ability to accurately rank industrial categories for further review on the basis of the human health and environmental hazards associated with those categories. Data from industrial facilities’ discharge monitoring reports have the benefit of being national in scope, according to EPA documents, but according to agency officials and some experts we spoke with, these data have several limitations that could lead the agency to underestimate the hazard caused by particular industries. Specifically:

• The reports contain data only for those pollutants that facilities’ permits require them to monitor. Under NPDES, states and EPA offices issue permits containing limits for pollutant discharges, but those permits may not include limits for all the pollutants that may be discharged, as for example, if those pollutants are not included in the relevant effluent guidelines or need not be limited for the facility to meet state water quality standards.30 If a pollutant is not identified in a permit, and hence not reported on discharge monitoring reports, it would not be part of EPA’s calculation of hazard and would not count toward the ranking of industrial categories.

  • The reports do not include data from all permitted facilities. Specifically, EPA does not require the states to report monitoring results from direct dischargers classified as minor. According to EPA, the agency in 2010 analyzed data for approximately 15,000 minor facilities, or about 37 percent of the 40,500 minor facilities covered by NPDES permits. As a result, the pollutants discharged by the remaining 25,500 minor dischargers would not be counted as part of the relative toxicity rating and could contribute to undercounting of pollutants from those industrial categories. For example, most coal mining companies in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are considered minor dischargers whose pollutants would not count toward the ranking of that industrial category.
  • The reports include very limited data characterizing indirect discharges from industrial facilities to wastewater treatment plants, according to EPA documents. Thus, the data do not fully document pollutants that, if not removed by a wastewater treatment plant, are discharged. These data are not incorporated into EPA’s calculations of hazard for each industrial category, and thus result in underestimated hazards.31 …

EPA documents and some experts we contacted also stated that data collected in the Toxics Release Inventory are useful to identify toxic discharges. Nevertheless, according to the agency and experts, these inventory data have limitations that may cause EPA to either overestimate or underestimate the relative toxicity of particular industrial categories. The limitations they identified include the following:

  • The data reported are sometimes estimates and not actual monitored data. In some cases, the use of an estimate may overreport actual pollutant discharges. For example, some industry experts said that to be conservative and avoid possible liability, some facilities engaging in processes that produce particularly toxic pollutants, such as dioxin, may report the discharge of a small amount on the basis of an EPA- prescribed method for estimating such discharges even if the pollutant had not been actually monitored.
  • Not all facilities are required to report to the inventory, which may lead to undercounting the discharges for the industrial categories of which the facilities are a part. Facilities with fewer than 10 employees are not required to report to the inventory, and neither are facilities that do not manufacture, import, process, or use more than a threshold amount of listed chemicals. For example, facilities that manufacture or process lead or dioxin do not need to report to the inventory unless the amount of chemical manufactured or processed reaches10 pounds for lead or 0.1 grams for dioxin. […]

In more than half of our interviews (10 of 17), experts told us that EPA should consider technology in its screening phase,38 and some of them suggested the following two approaches for obtaining this information:

  • Stakeholder outreach. Experts suggested that key stakeholders could provide information on technology earlier in the screening process. Currently, EPA solicits views and information from stakeholders during public comment periods following issuance of preliminary and final effluent guidelines plans. According to experts, EPA could obtain up-to-date information and data from stakeholders beyond these formal comment periods. For example, EPA officials could (1) attend annual workshops and conferences hosted by industries and associations, such as engineering associations, or host their own expert panels to learn about new treatment technologies and (2) work with industrial research and development institutes to learn about efforts to reduce wastewater pollution through production changes or treatment technologies.
  • NPDES permits and related documentation. Experts suggested that to find more information on treatment technologies available for specific pollutants, EPA could make better use of information in NPDES permit documentation. For example, when applying for NPDES permits, facilities must describe which pollutants they will be discharging and what treatment processes they will use to mitigate these discharges. Such information could help EPA officials administering the effluent guidelines program as they seek technologies to reduce pollutants in similar wastewater streams from similar industrial processes. Similarly, information from issued NPDES  permits containing the more stringent water quality-based limits— which may lead a facility to apply more advanced treatment technologies—could suggest the potential for improved reductions. Further, information in fact sheets prepared by the permitting authority could also furnish information on pollutants or technologies that could help EPA identify new technologies for use in effluent guidelines.

How’s that glass of water taste now?

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Low Hanging Fruit in Pollution Control Remains Unregulated

October 12th, 2012 No comments

 DEP Stalled on Updating Regulatory Standards In Light on New Science

Bayway refinery - Linden, NJ. 19th Century technology.

The current narrative on environmental regulation goes something like this:

Back in the bad old days, we had all these obvious unregulated major industrial “point sources” of gross pollution that were easy to regulate. But now, we have picked all that low hanging fruit, regulated industrial point sources, and have a much harder problem controlling a large number of dispersed small “non-point” sources that are difficult to regulate. Any stricter regulation would be a hugely costly exercise in diminishing returns. We need to do something different and go “beyond regulation” and towards a “third way” , “green purchasing”, “corporate responsibility”, or “sustainability”.

That story is a pile of crap. Here’s why.

Going back at least 20 years, during the Florio Administration, DEP consultants submitted reports documenting that as much as 50% of air pollution emissions from a typical industrial facility were emitted by “unregulated sources” or were unregulated “fugitive emissions”.

That means that existing DEP regulations and air permits MISSED HALF THE POLLUTION!

But instead of closing loopholes on emission sources and ratcheting down on unregulated fugitive emissions, DEP did nothing to regulate these pollution emissions (and industry did little to invest in upgrades to very old technology and leaky facilities beyond what was required by flawed DEP regulations).

Fast forward until 2007, just 5 years ago, and read those same findings repeated, in a Report on the Facility-Wide Permit (FWP) pilot program:

  • Under an existing air pollution control permit, a facility was allowed to emit 2000 pounds per year of trichloroethylene (TCE), a hazardous air pollutant from a degreasing unit. The materials accounting data developed by the facility revealed actual TCE releases of 94,000 pounds per year, with the majority being reported as fugitive emissions. The facility ultimately implemented P2 measures that allowed for the removal of the degreasing unit.
  • One facility treated a wide range of volatile organic compound (VOC) air emissions using a dual carbon bed adsorption system. While one carbon bed was being used to treat the air emissions, the other bed was being steamed cleaned. The VOCs driven off by the steam cleaning were condensed and sent to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The materials accounting data developed by the facility, corroborated by sampling data, showed VOC levels between 25 and100, 000 micro-grams per liter (ug/l) when the waste stream entered the sewer but less than 2 ug/l at the POTW. This led to the discovery that most of the VOCs that should have been treated at the POTW were actually being released back into the air via an open catch basin. Unable to implement P2 measures, the facility greatly reduced the discharge of VOCs by installing an additional air pollution control device. 
  • Because the development of materials accounting on a facility basis leads to a better understanding of production processes, it enables permitting staff to entertain options that are not obvious under traditional permitting guidelines. One specific example of this is that of a facility that produced vinyl chloride monomer. This facility had an existing air pollution control permit that included an annual production limit. During the FWP development, the facility approached the Department about the possibility of removing this limit. The Department and the facility worked together to conduct a facility-wide risk assessment for all sources of vinyl chloride monomer releases. Using the results of the risk assessment, the Department and the facility agreed that increases would be allowed in annual production providing that there was a concomitant reduction in air releases as measured by utilizing the pounds of release per unit of product efficiency limits unique to FWPs. This allowed the facility to increase production while maintaining process efficiency and avoiding additional air pollution.
  • An unanticipated benefit of combining the multi-media, process-level materials accounting data contained in the P2 Plan to permit limits and compliance data was the ability to identify discrepancies in data, unregulated emissions, and multi-media transfers of pollutants. Once these issues were identified, it was necessary to determine how to address them within the regulatory framework. 

Because the FWP model requires a review of permitting data on a multi-media level in conjunction with the P2 materials accounting data, the model provides greater transparency with regards to a facility’s operations and potential impacts on the surrounding community. The model is able to uncover permitting discrepancies, unpermitted sources, environmental and human health risk issues, and areas where cross-media shifts of pollution occur.It was the ability to permit a facility as a whole instead of permitting a single piece of equipment or a single discharge point that was the true success of the program. The incorporation of P2 materials accounting data into the FWP model provided the Department and the facility with a clear understanding of the sources and impacts of pollution at the facility from a multi media standpoint.


Recommendations

Much of what was determined to be beneficial in the FWP model can be incorporated into existing single-media programs. Specifically the Department could:

  • Integrate P2 multi-media materials accounting procedures where appropriate in permitting programs to ensure better accountability and data collection.
  • Identify facilities where cross media shifts of pollutants can be reduced or eliminated.
  • Use the FWP model with facilities that are out of compliance with permit conditions as the means to come into compliance.
  • The Department should investigate the possibility of utilizing the “ratcheting down”authority contained in the P2 Act. 

Despite these recommendations and significant benefits of Pollution Prevention, the DEP is now considering to abolish the programs (consistent with the federal rollback policy of Executive Order #2). Per the DEP internal “stakeholder” group:

The meeting was held to follow up on one issue that arose during the first stakeholder meeting, namely, trying to determine the usefulness of the Community Right to Know (CRTK) inventory data, the Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR) materials accounting data and the Pollution Prevention (P2) data to other programs within NJDEP, and potential impacts to these programs if the Department decided to do away with these programs and only rely on the Federal counterparts to these programs. 

We recently found very similar problems in DEP oversight and air pollution permits based on a scientific study in Paterson with respect to emissions of hazardous air pollutants. DEP lacked an accurate inventory of pollution sources, emissions, and there were unregulated emissions.

Ooops! Holy Moly I almost forgot to mention another even more significant regulatory finding DEP made in 2005 – the decision to regulate CO2 and greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” under the NJ Air Pollution Control Act:

2. Formal Determination and Justification

The Department determines, based on the evidence outlined herein, that regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air contaminant is in the best interest of human health, welfare, and the environment. This statement shall fulfill the Department’s requirement to advise the public of its determination and justification for this determination, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2i.

The Department’s determination is based on compelling scientific evidence of existing and projected adverse impacts due to climate change on the environment, ecosystems, wildlife, human health, and enjoyment of property in the State. The Department also bases this determination in part on the expected impacts of climate change on the formation of ground-level ozone. Increases in average temperature and related extreme heat events will increase the formation of ground-level ozone and further undermine the State’s attempts to meet national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for NOx, with attendant increases in adverse human health and environmental impacts, as well as State compliance costs.

So, what has DEP done since 2005 with this regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions and other striking findings and recommendations that show very specifically how to improve regulation, reduce pollution emissions, increase transparency to the public, and better identify adverse impacts to the surrounding community?

Nothing – Nada – Zilch – Zero!

What have the legislature, the media, and environmental groups done to focus on these same issues and glaring flaws in DEP regulatory oversight?

You tell me.

But in the meantime, stop drinking the Kool-Aid and Get Real.

The polluters are still running wild and poisoning people and destroying the planet.

And the regulators are still blind and handcuffed by politics and the power of the polluters.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Christie DEP’s New Enforcement Priorities

October 11th, 2012 No comments

(Source: NJDEP)

Welcome to the parallel universe of Christie/Martin environmental policy!

Ignore that chart above for a moment and consider the reaction if the State Police or Pentagon announced a new program to assign Troopers or Marines to the Candy Striper Division, to put on Candy Striper uniforms, and go clean hospital bedpans.

How would the Troopers, the Troops, and the press and public respond to that?

(Obviously Candy Stripers perform an important and essential function, but it is not the State Police or Marine Corps mission or culture.)

Now take a look at DEP’s new enforcement paradigm and “vision”, whose stated objective is to “Get more done through partnerships ” and new enforcement program priorities:

Creating Sustainable Businesses in New Jersey

October 16, 2012, 1:00 – 3:30

NJDEP Headquarters, 401 E. State St., Trenton, NJ Public Hearing Room – 1st Floor

Goals for this Initiative:

  • Promote sustainability planning and practices among New Jersey businesses to enhance economic success, environmental protection, and an improved quality of life.
  • Identify and share resources to educate and encourage the New Jersey business community on SROI (sustainable return on investment).

Is it DEP Enforcement’s job to serve as “sustainability and stewardship salesmen” and consultants to regulated industries? To provide free advice to help business increase profits?

Maybe those new enforcement visions and priorities explain why DEP enforcement performance is at a record lowas reported by Todd Bates of the Asbury Park Press:

proposed fines covering seven major DEP programs, including air and water quality and land use, plunged from $31.6 million in fiscal year 2007 to $9.1 million in fiscal 2011. That’s the lowest figure since at least 2002 and about half the 10-year average.

The collection of fines is down as well, dropping to $7.5 million in fiscal 2011, the lowest figure since 2006. Also, the number of enforcement inspectors has dropped by about 20 percent over the past five years, making it more difficult to catch polluters in the first place.

At the same time, the DEP has dramatically increased the number of settlements it has agreed to, allowing polluters to get off with relatively small fines. These settlements, the environmental equivalent of a plea bargain, allow violators to pay far less in fines, sometimes pennies on the dollars.

This “sustainable business” promotional effort is part of a broader Christie/Martin “DEP Transformation” agenda to gut the traditional DEP regulatory enforcement paradigm and replace it with a voluntary, privatized, corporate model (based on private 3rd party “certifications” and “incentives)“.

The Christie/Martin transformation vision and pro-business policies contradict the recommendations of DEP professionals – none of which suggest a need for “partnerships” and “customer relations” with regulated business and only one of which even mentions the “stewardship” program (that single comment was probably by the guy who created that program under Lisa Jackson. The Jackson program was insignificant in size, scope, and impact, with, after 5 years, only 36 companies meeting  just 3 of 21 stewardship program benchmarks.

After 5 years, the Jackson “stewardship” program has had no demonstrated environmental benefits, so it is hardly a model upon which to expand and base DEP’s new enforcement paradigm.)

Instead of traditional enforcement, the Christie/MartinDEP now provides compliance assistance and incentives (carrots) and retires the sticks.

Here’s how DEP expresses that vision:

We are building a nationally recognized organization that empowers our trained and dedicated professionals to ensure New Jersey’s businesses, communities and individuals are models of environmental stewardship and compliance.

Candy Stripers, for sure.

In fairness to Assistant Commissioner Skacel, who is a career professional I have high regard for, the vision does include this as a “result to be delivered” by the New Vision dictated by his boss, DEP Commissioner Martin:

Maintain deterrence and no backsliding on past environmental gains  

I just strongly doubt that that is possible, given the pro-business policies of the Christie administration and scarce and declining DEP staff resources.

And, as Todd Bates reported, the available evidence supports my doubts.

So, now, let’s get to that chart at the top of the post.

It shows compliance rates by DEP program. Overall, compliance rates are increasing and pretty good is some programs (85 – 92% in water supply, hazardous waste, and water quality) and not so good in land use, pesticides and underground storage tanks (UST) – 25 – 70%.

Curiously, the 3 programs with the worst compliance rates (land use, pesticides, and UST) are the targets of the FEWEST inspections! Take a look at DEP’s own data:

But, despite generally good and improving regulatory compliance rates, NJ is not meeting environmental goals and standards:

NJ’s air quality does not meet federal health standards for ozone and safe levels for numerous cancer causing hazardous air pollutants.   None –  zero – of  waters meet all standards set under the federal Clean Water Act to protect their designated uses. We continue to lose thousands of acres of land to sprawl, the coast is highly vulnerable to storms and sea level rise, hundreds of chemicals have been detected in our drinking water supplies, our fish and shellfish are too toxic to eat, indicators of biological and ecological integrity continue to decline, while energy consumption, automobile trips, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

So, if  compliance with current regulations is not achieving our goals, what should we do?

It seems obviously common sense that we should:

  • enact stricter regulatory standards
  • increase fines and inspections to provide deterrence
  • beef up enforcement effort and increase staff and resources
  • Crack down on the 15-40% of the businesses that continue to violate

But, how does DEP respond to this contradiction of high compliance rates and declining environmental quality? They:

  • relax regulations
  • reduce fines and inspections
  • slash staff and resources
  • target the best complying programs for the most inspections
  • provide “stewardship” assistance to violators
  • stress “partnership” and “customer service” over enforcement

Welcome to the parallel universe of Christie/Martin environmental policy!

[End Note: And what do you think is going to happen to those compliance rates as DEP cuts inspections, fines, deterrence, and reduces cops on the beat to a pursue a “partnership” strategy?

I guarantee that they will go down, further jeopardizing public health and the environment.]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: