WolfeNotes.com

Booker Tweet Hides Nuclear Shilling Behind Historic Postcard

Booker uses Camden & Newark kids to promote subsidies to nuclear industry

Down and Out in Salem, NJ

Senator Corey Booker has cultivated an image as some kind of social media rock star through his incessant, vacuous, and self promotional twitter account.

But this is a tweet too far, one that he’s sure to regret:

Although you wouldn’t know it from looking at that historical postcard tweet, yesterday, Booker tag teamed with NJ Senate President Steve Sweeney – hot off his attack on NJ’s teachers and public worker unions disgusted by Sweeney’s betrayal on pensions – on a pro-nuclear propaganda tour of PSEG’s Salem County nuke plants.

Contrary to Booker’s tweet depicting the Salem County Historical Society, the Senators saw THIS:

Hiding nuclear shilling behind historical society postcards is shameful. But that’s not all.

While Booker and Sweeney want to give nuclear corporations billions of taxpayer dollars, they don’t have a dime or the time of day to even visit – and Booker’s tweet doesn’t show – Salem City, a down and out severely distressed place, that looks like THIS:

Giving nuclear corporations billions of taxpayer dollars while neglecting impoverished people who live in places like Salem City is one set of warped priorities!

Now back to the nuke tour

The timing of yesterday’s tour is highly revealing.

Just weeks ago, California regulators got national attention for their decision to phase out nuclear power in favor of renewable energy from solar and wind.

Days after that decision, PSEG began a media propaganda campaign to preempt and reframe that story from phase out of nuclear to new nuke subsidies, see: New Jersey’s Nuclear Imperative.

And just last week, New York State approved billions in nuclear subsidies, a horrible policy PSEG is trying to build support for and export to NJ: [read entire Counterpunch story]

The New York State Public Service Commission—in the face of strong opposition—this week approved a $7.6 billion bailout of aging nuclear power plants in upstate New York which their owners have said are uneconomic to run without government support.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo—who appoints the members of the PSC—has called for the continued operation of the nuclear plants in order to, he says, save jobs at them. The bail-out would be part of a “Clean Energy Standard” advanced by Cuomo. Under it, 50 percent of electricity used in New York by 2030 would come from “clean and renewable energy sources”—with nuclear power considered clean and renewable.

Continuing that propaganda assault, PSEG is desperate to avoid that negative NY story getting out and is engaging in even more propaganda to reframe this issue – which is a critical perspective you would not get from reading today’s NJ Spotlight coverage, which is basically a “movie along, nothing to see here”.

I got a belly laugh out of this line from the Spotlight story – as if a personal tour of a nuke plant by a US Senator and State Senate President is not “getting policy makers’ attention”:

It is an issue Public Service Enterprise Group, the owner of three nuclear plants in south Jersey, is trying to raise, but it faces a bigger hurdle in getting policy makers’ attention.

So yesterday’s tour with NJ Senate President Sweeney was not just a one off gesture. It is part of a nuclear revival campaign Senator Booker is the carnival Barker for.

I suspect that not many New Jerseyans are aware of the extent of Booker’s nuclear shilling.

Booker has sponsored Legislation to Update Nuclear Licensing Frameworks to promote expansion of nuclear power.

He’s sponsored amendments to energy law to “increase collaboration among private industry, universities, and national laboratories to facilitate the development of advanced nuclear technologies.”, which is code for more public subsidies and privatization.

Booker said: (to Politico)

“Our economy and our federal policy do not fully recognize the true value of nuclear power as we have it now ..

Take a look at the video of this recent deranged Booker rant – delivered with religious fervor to the nuclear industry insiders in Washington DC. The nuclear industry hacks called it an “inspirational talk” and claim that Booker views nukes as “renewable energy” (see video and transcript):

There is no depth to which Booker won’t go to justify his nuclear shilling.

I found the promotion of nukes on the back of poor black kids from Camden and Newark a disgrace:

For me, this is about the kids in my city. For me, this is about kids in Camden and Patterson who are suffering not just because we have a polluted atmosphere, but it’s also about creating an America for them that is bold and courageous again. Our effort here will help with job creation, spurring our economy. It will grow it in significant ways.

Does Booker seriously think ANY kid from Camden or Newark is going to benefit from nuke subsidies and gain employment in the nuclear industry?

Is he out of his mind? Or just one deeply cynical bastard who will say anything?

Booker even appealed to God, mimicking right wing talking points about government regulations that protect us, to “remove bureaucratic barriers”:

And so today, we need to figure out greater ways to drive investment, to remove, dear god, the bureaucratic barriers. 

There is no daylight between Booker’s attack on government regulation and that of Chris Christie or, for that matter, Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract On America.

Now for some old news

The current talk of reviving nukes is absurd, especially considering that just a few years ago, the industry was on its death bed:

Final Nail in Nukes Coffin?

In a devastating story, the New York Times Business page lands what could be a knockout blow to the nuclear industry’s attempt to revive nuclear power. Nuke industry PR has argued that new “safe” and “cost effective” engineering designs have solved the safety and economic issues, while the global warming crisis warrants a huge expansion. But the Times story destroys those myths, on purely economic grounds:

In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble
By JAMES KANTER
Published: May 28, 2009
OLKILUOTO, Finland — As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.
The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.
But things have not gone as planned.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?em

NJ DEP Downplays High Lead Risks 

DEP Lead Sampling Methods Mask Lead Levels

DEP private well sampling protocol requires flushing, conflicts with US EPA methods

Do 66% – 72% of NJ water supply systems served by highly corrosive groundwater implement corrosion control programs? Do the same percentage of private residential wells? Doubtful.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) just released a national study “Potential Corrosivity of Untreated Groundwater in the United States” that finds NJ groundwater is highly corrosive, among only a handful of states with a “very high prevalence” of corrosive groundwater.

The study suggests that NJ faces high risks of leaching of lead from pipes and plumbing into drinking water (see USGS press release):

Two indicators of potential corrosivity were combined to determine that corrosive groundwater occurs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Corrosive groundwater, if untreated, can dissolve lead and other metals from pipes and plumbing fixtures.

“The corrosivity of untreated groundwater is only one of several factors that may affect the quality of household drinking water at the tap,” said Don Cline, USGS associate director for Water. “Nevertheless, it is an essential factor that should be carefully considered in testing for water quality in both public and private supplies nationwide.”

Note that USGS study considered the risks of corrosive groundwater on BOTH private wells and public water supplies.

NJ had the nation’s 4th largest number of domestic supply wells that were highly vulnerable (USGS estimated 964,000 people depended on those well – see Table 2 below) – USGS found from 66 – 72.3% of those wells corrosive *See Table 3).

I previously wrote about high lead levels found in NJ’s Private Well Testing Act program data:

• NJ DEP Has Know For YEARS that Up to 18% of NJ Homes Have High Lead Levels

Here is the lead data, from DEP’s Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) Report (2008):

Lead samples in homes – A total of 5,523 (11%) of the homes had lead levels above the previous Ground Water Quality Standard of 10 μg/l. This number increased to 9,368 (18%) of homes that had lead levels above the new Ground Water Quality Standard of 5 μg/l. This indicates that many homes still have lead in their plumbing systems, since it is unlikely that it originated from the raw ground water supply.  (page 18)

The issue of honestly disclosing the risks from lead in drinking water is a longstanding problem at DEP.

DEP’ initial 2004 PWTA Report flat out rejected the lead results:

Based on the results submitted to NJDEP during the first six months, 92% of the 5,179 wells passed all the required primary (health-based) standards, with the exception of lead. For reasons presented below, the lead results are not included in any of the summary results.

Shortly after the PWTA sampling began, county and local health agencies noted that some of the reported lead results were unexpectedly high. Often the local health departments, through careful confirmatory sampling, could not confirm the results. Well water testing conducted prior to the PWTA rarely detected the presence of lead in well water. High lead levels in drinking water were attributed to well structures or plumbing, not groundwater sources. NJDEP considers the lead results to be suspect and therefore did not include them in the summary charts. The suspect results indicate that 640 wells (12%) out of the 5,179 tested had lead levels above the state’s Ground Water Quality Standard of 10 ug/l. Furthermore, the range of reported concentrations for lead, 1-12,000 ug/l, is unrealistically high and indicates a likely problem with the sampling location. A research study is underway to further evaluate lead sampling and analytical techniques so that the NJDEP may better understand the lead sampling results.

DEP again downplayed and obfuscated those lead risks in the most recent PWTA Report (2008):

There are special considerations for arsenic and lead with regards to the data in this report. Neither the USEPA nor the NJDEP have an MCL for lead. An Action Level of 15 μg/L has been established for lead (i.e., if the “90th percentile” lead concentration is greater than 15 μg/L). However, the Action Level for lead is not being used in the PWTA Program. This is because the federal drinking water regulations state that the 15 μg/L Action Level should be applied to a series of samples taken from consumers’ taps and the tap samples must stand motionless in the plumbing system for at least six hours prior to sample collection. Since a raw (untreated) groundwater sample is required by the PWTA, the more stringent NJDEP Ground Water Quality standard of 5 μg/L was used as the exceedance threshold because the PWTA sample is a groundwater sample. The report also utilizes the New Jersey established an MCL for arsenic of 5 μg/l which is lower than the federal MCL of 10 μg/l.

I have been unable to find the “research” on lead sampling mentioned in the DEP’s 2004 PWTA Report, but subsequent research found serious flaws with NJ DEP drinking water and laboratory certification regulations.

Here is the DEP regulation under the Private Well Testing Act (homes with wells) and note DEP specifically requires FLUSHING.  US EPA rules prohibit FLUSHING because it underestimates lead levels.

Here are NJ DEP PWTA regulations:

NJAC 7:9E-2.3

(c) In addition to the requirements set forth at (a) and (b) above, before a water sample for lead analysis under this chapter is collected, water shall be flushed through the plumbing system for at least two minutes (until the water changes temperature), in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:18

The NJ DEP Private Well Testing Act rules are linked to the Laboratory Certification regulations (NJAC 7:18).

So both DEP rules, which require flushing, conflict with federal EPA sampling protocols for public water systems that prohibit flushing:

4. Sampling Protocols- 40 C.F.R.141.86(b) 

Sampling procedures must be provided to the individual collecting the sample. The instructions provided shall be in accordance with 40 C.F.R.141.86(b) and EPA’s Memorandum titled Clarification of Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures for Purposes of the Lead and Copper Rule, dated February 29, 2016 as follows:

• Each first draw sample for lead and copper shall be 1 liter in volume and have stood motionless in the plumbing system of each sampling site for at least six hours;

• Do not perform or recommend pre-stagnation flushing (flushing the tap for a specified period of time prior to starting the minimum 6 hour stagnation time);

The PWTA and Lab Certification rules that require flushing also conflict with the Department of Education lead sampling  rules just adopted for schools. DoE school sampling regulations require that water has sat in pipes – a conservative method and good thing:

iii. The following sampling procedures:

(1) Samples shall be taken after water has sat, undisturbed in the school pipes for at least eight hours but no more than 48 hours before the sample is taken;

Finally, the Christie DEP Lead In Drinking Water Guidance fails to even mention this USGS study, and it requires an update to address this set of issues.

If NJ has highly corrosive groundwater, then BOTH public water systems and private wells that rely on that corrosive groundwater need to take step to reduce corrosively and leaching of lead.

It is not clear how stringent and widespread NJ DEP’s corrosion control requirements are. Do 66 – 72% of NJ water supply systems served by highly corrosive water implement corrosion control programs? Do the same percentage of private wells? Doubtful.

NJ DEP rules that require flushing must be revised to provide more accurate lead results, as required under federal EPA Safe Drinking Water Act sampling protocols for public systems.

In order to get this issue on the DEP’s radar screen, I will send letters to the DEP Water Supply Advisory Council and the Drinking Water Quality Institute and DEP’s Laboratory Certification Program for consideration and action.

More to follow on that

A moss covered crotch of two lovely Linden trees provides a perfect perch over Crosswicks Creek and the Hamilton – Trenton marsh.

As we approach the spot today, a red tail hawk screeches loudly, warning us to stay away.

If you’re lucky, you can see red tails and even bald eagle soaring over the marsh – but not today.

There are many such spots of solitude along the Bordentown Bluffs trail, but the Linden crotch is our favorite place to sit and watch the creek flow by.

The canopy of trees lining the bluffs at this spot opens in two places, providing framed spectacular views of marsh and creek – almost as if someone had cleared them just to be able to sit there and get the perfect view. If the openings were a few feet left or right, the ugly PSEG Duck Island power plant or the smokestacks from Pennsylvania factories would come into view. A few feet up or down, and the creek would not be visible.

Today, we are lost in what could be one of those gaudy romantic landscape paintings, with the green of the marsh a perfect contrast with the deep blue sky punctuated by huge brilliant white billowing clouds (no camera today!).

But Thoreau’s “A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers” speaks to us, dispelling such arrogant foolishness: (emphases mine – page 260, Library of America edition)

The trees made an admirable fence to the landscape, skirting the horizon on every side. The single trees and the groves left standing on the interval appeared naturally disposed, though the farmer had consulted only his convenience, for he too falls into the scheme of Nature. Art can never match the luxury and superfluity of Nature. In the former all is seen; it cannot afford concealed wealth, and is niggardly in comparison; but Nature, even when she is scant and thin outwardly, satisfies us still by the assurance of a certain generosity at the roots. In swamps, where there is only here and there an ever-green tree amid the quaking moss and cranberry beds, the bareness does not suggest poverty. The single-spruce, which I had hardly noticed in gardens, attracts me in such places, and now first I understand why men try to make them grow about their houses. But though there may be very perfect specimens in front-yard plots, their beauty is for the most part ineffectual there, for there is no such assurance of kindred wealth beneath and around them, to make them show to advantage. As we have said, Nature is a greater and more perfect art, the art of God; though, referred to herself, she is genius; and there is a similarity between her operations and man’s art even in the details and trifles. When the overhanging pine drops into the water, by the sun and water, and the wind rubbing it against the shore, its boughs are worn into fantastic shapes, and white and smooth, as if turned in a lathe. Man’s art has wisely imitated those forms into which all matter is most inclined to run, as foliage and fruit. A hammock swung in a grove assumes the exact form of a canoe, broader or narrower, and higher or lower at the ends, as more or fewer persons are in it, and it rolls in the air with the motion of the body, like a canoe in the water. Our art leaves its shavings and its dust about; her art exhibits itself even in the shavings and the dust which we make. She has perfected herself by an eternity of practice. The world is well kept; no rubbish accumulates; the morning air is clear even at this day, and no dust has settled on the grass. Behold how the evening now steals over the fields, the shadows of the trees creeping farther and farther into the meadow, and erelong the stars will come to bathe in these retired waters. Her undertakings are secure and never fail. If I were awakened from a deep sleep, I should know which side of the meridian the sun might be by the aspect of nature, and by the chirp of the crickets, and yet no painter can paint this difference. The landscape contains a thousand dials which indicate the natural divisions of time, the shadows of a thousand styles point to the hour.

DEP Issues Air Permit to BL England Plant

Plant to Be Served By Private Pinelands Pipeline & Fracked Gas

Climate Impacts Ignored

[Update below]

The Christie DEP just approved another fossil fueled power plant in Cape May County, known as the BL England plant.

The plant was strongly opposed by hundreds of local residents, climate activists, and environmentalists. During the public comment process in May, we requested EPA review of the draft permit, a premature request at the time that is now timely, but I’m not optimistic that EPA will act.

It is hard to imagine a project that: 1) combines so many major environmental problems; 2) illustrates fatal policy flaws in the Christie Administration’s pro-gas policy; and 3) exploits gaping loopholes in the regulatory framework:

• lack of energy planning to assure a need for the new power capacity
• failure to consider environmentally and economically superior alternatives, like efficiency, demand management, and renewable energy
• no siting or coastal zone land use policy – the plant is located on a coastal site that is highly vulnerable to climate change driven sea level rise & storm surge
• there was undue and corrupt influence of lobbyists – criminally indicted “Chairman” David Samson’s discredited Wolff & Samson law firm lobbied the Governor’s Office for approvals
• the plant is to be served by a private pipeline throughout the Pinelands National Reserve
• the source of the gas is Marcellus shale fracking
• the DEP regulatory framework is broken and fails to consider key issues, like climate impacts

This permit shows how absurdly pro-gas Gov. Christie is – NJ Spotlight story:

If the project moves forward, however, it would continue a trend to place increased emphasis on natural gas as the fuel to provide electricity to homes and businesses, a policy strongly endorsed by the Christie administration. B.L. England is the fifth new gas power plant either built or pending in the state since the governor took office. …

The repowered plant would be able to emit up to 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, making it the biggest polluting power plant in South Jersey for global warming pollution, environmentalists said.

Those other new gas plants are West Deptford Energy Center, Woodbridge Energy Center, Newark Energy Center, and PSEG Fossil, LLC Sewaren Generating Station

The DEP response to public comments admits that there are fatal flaws in how DEP regulates power plants.

Climate impacts ignored

The NJ DEP defined greenhouse gases (GHG) as air pollutants over a decade ago and pledged to adopt mandatory GHG emissions regulations (see this for the 2005 DEP rule):

… the Department believes that mandatory actions to control CO2 emissions will ultimately be necessary to achieve CO2 emission reductions that place the State on a long-term trajectory toward emissions levels (considering the State’s current contribution to global CO2 emissions) necessary to achieve global atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would be required for climate stabilization. Although voluntary programs have led to incremental emissions reductions, absolute CO2 emissions in the State continue to rise.

That 2005 DEP rule was supposed to be just the first step in regulating GHG emissions. The necessary next regulatory steps never happened. We’ve wasted over a decade.

Meanwhile, at the regional level, Gov. Christie rescinded NJ’s market based pollutant trading scheme designed as an alternative to regulation known as “RGGI”. At the national level, the Obama EPA Clean Power Plan is flawed and is being legally challenged by many States, including the Christie administration.

Given the imperative to take State level action to respond to flawed regional and national efforts, I want to outline a few of the gaping loopholes in the current NJ DEP regulatory framework. This can help provide an activist’s agenda so that the Legislature and the next Administration can work to  close them.

Large Carbon footprint – arbitrary DEP assumption of net reduction

According to DEP, the plant would be a major carbon source.

There is absolutely no evidence provided by DEP to support DEP’s arbitrary assumption that the plant would “displace” dirtier power and produce a “net reduction in CO2″. DEP response to public comment:

As for the CO2 footprint, the potential to emit (PTE) for the repowered power plant would be 1,522,667 TPY, which is less than the PTE for the existing plant. As the repowered facility would be an efficient, new power plant, it is expected that it would displace power generated from older, less efficient coal and natural gas fired power plants in the region, resulting in a net reduction in CO2.

Global Warming Response Act Goals Are Ignored

The DEP failed to consider how the plant could meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act. DEP response to public comment:

Response: New Jersey is developing and implementing various types of GHG emissions mitigation goals in order to understand future emission levels and emissions reductions required to meet the New Jersey GWRA goal of 2050. The GWRA 2050 target requires New Jersey to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent from 2006 levels by 2050. This limit is equivalent to 25.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent. The NJDEP has developed four hypothetical scenarios that represent outcomes of 2050. The “base case” scenario represents New Jersey’s current or “business as usual” path, indicating that New Jersey would continue with the present electricity mix. The three other scenarios would include switching coal generation to natural gas, as the BL England repowering project would. For more information see “Statewide Greenhouse Gas Inventory” at http://www.nj.gov/dep/aqes/sggi.html

As we noted in a 2007 Star Ledger Op-Ed, written shortly after the GWRA was enacted, it lacks teeth:

The law — contrary to widespread media coverage — does not legally cap greenhouse gas emissions or mandate emissions reductions on any major pollution sources. As a result, the law’s theoretically “mandatory” goals are unenforceable and therefore a fiction. They amount to the same voluntary approach backed by the Bush administration.

Specifically, the law provides no regulatory authority, funding or staff for the DEP to take the necessary steps to implement and enforce the emission reduction goals. Instead, the DEP is kept on a tight leash and merely directed to develop a set of recommendations on how to meet the goals and to submit that proposed plan to the Legislature by June 2008. In passing the law, the Legislature merely kicked the can down the road, postponing hard choices for well over a year.

The Act must be amended and given teeth. The US EPA Obama Clean Power Plan is inadequate and suffers from some of the same fatal flaws as NJ DEP regulations. DEP response to public comment:

Currently, CO2 emissions are not subject to NJDEP regulations. However, as explained in Response to Comments 1 and 6, the proposed operating permit does regulate CO2 emissions from the proposed NGCC plant as required by the NSPS for GHGs emitted by new power plants. The applicable Federal USEPA limit for CO2 is 1,000 lb/MWhr (from 40 CFR Subpart TTTT).

“State of the art” in pollution control (SOTA) far too narrow

The DEP regulations define “state of the art” in pollution control (SOTA) very narrowly. According to DEP response to public comment:

Comment: … The commenters stated that regulated GHG emissions could be reduced or eliminated by energy efficiency, reduction in energy demand, demand management, and/or renewable energy; none of these “pollution control” methods were considered. …

Response: Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.2, New Jersey Title V Operating Permit Requirements apply to a facility as defined in N.J.A.C 7:27-22.1. At N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1, a facility consists of “the combination of all structures, buildings, equipment, control apparatus, storage tanks, source operations, and other operations that are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and that are under common control of the same person or persons.” Thus, requirements for off-site measures that are not under control of the owners or operators, such as reduction in energy demand or demand management, are beyond the scope of the NJDEP’s authority to review an operating permit application. Also, the NJDEP cannot redefine a project to include renewable energy.

This DEP rule contrasts with a far broader approach under EPA federal rules. Pollution control technology is generally understood and defined by EPA regulations:

“the term “control technology” is defined broadly to be consistent with section 112(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act to include measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques which reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, HAP through process changes, substitution of materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or a combination of the above.

Obviously, “State of the Art” in pollution control for greenhouse gases MUST include consideration of energy efficiency, demand management, and renewable energy. That may require legislation or perhaps the next DEP Commissioner can issue regulations.

Lifecycle emissions are not considered

The DEP failed to consider secondary and cumulative impacts, based on lifecycle emissions. DEP response to comment:

30. Comment: Commenters stated that the draft operating permit did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of the lifecycle emissions of GHGs, including emissions from pipelines, compressor stations, and hydraulic fracturing wells. (5, 7, 24) Multiple commenters stated that, from “cradle to grave,” natural gas is just as bad as coal.

Response: Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.2, New Jersey Title V Operating Permit requirements apply to a facility as defined in N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 (see the Response to Comment 8). The NJDEP evaluates the permit applications as submitted, and approves or denies applications based on their compliance with applicable State or Federal air pollution control rules and regulations. Emissions of GHGs from the pipelines, compressor stations, and hydraulic fracturing wells, which are not part of or under the control of the facility, are outside the scope of the NJDEP’s regulatory authority with regard to review of this permit application.

There are several other significant gaps in the environmental and public health impact review of this permit, including failure to integrate with the Pinelands Commission CMP or consider energy facility siting vulnerability along the coast as a result of climate change driven sea level rise.

I only focus above on the climate related flaws in order to help frame a climate agenda by focusing on the key regulatory changes that must be made.

More to follow.

[Update: 8/8/16 – David O’Reilly of the Philly Inquirer has a good story, see:

N.J. power plant dispute: Will coal-to-gas just keep an environmental ‘dinosaur’ alive?]