Archive for May, 2021

US EPA Touts Water Quality Improvements In Long Island Sound As A Result Of Nutrient Reduction TMDL

May 26th, 2021 No comments

After 8 Years of Denial By Christie DEP, Murphy DEP STILL Has Not Developed A TMDL For Barnegat Bay

Strict Regulation Works 

EPA Region II issued a press release today touting significant improvements in water quality in Long Island Sound. The improvements are a result of huge reductions in nitrogen pollution, which were driven primarily from a Clean Water Act mandated “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL).

The States of New York DEC and Connecticut DEP adopted the TMDL, which was approved by EPA in December of 2000.

As a result, according to EPA:

Levels of contaminants in the water, sediments, and wildlife have declined over time. Nitrogen pollution is declining. By 2014, wastewater treatment facilities achieved 94 percent of the nitrogen reduction goal established in the 2000 Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which means 108,000 fewer pounds of nitrogen were discharged into the Sound every day. Eelgrass (Zostera marina), a rooted underwater plant with ribbon-like strands that forms meadows ecologically important for fish and shellfish, increased by 4.5 percent between 2009 and 2012, and 29 percent between 2002 and 2012 (Tiner et al. 2013). Additional actions to control nitrogen runoff from streets, landscaping, and farms, along with further wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) upgrades, are underway to reach defined reduction goals by 2017, with further improvements to water quality expected.

A Tale Of Two Bays

The water quality and ecological health of NJ’s Barnegat Bay stands in sharp contrast to NY and Connecticut’s Long Island Sound, as does the regulatory responses from EPA and the State environmental agencies.

In contrast, the NJ DEP has dragged its feet for over a decade on a TMDL for Barnegat Bay.

EPA has failed to enforce the Clean Water Act in NJ and effectively oversee NJ DEP’s failure to comply with the Clean Water Act.

Almost 9 years ago, Rutger Professor Mike Kennish testified to the NJ Legislature that Barnegat Bay was suffering an “insidious ecological decline”, and warned that DEP “must seriously ramp things up” and adopt a TMDL to dramatically and quickly reduce nutrient pollution to the Bay, see:

Despite this warning, the Christie DEP avoided triggering a TMDL for Barnegat Bay, see:

After 8 years of Christie DEP denial, and 4 years into the Murphy DEP, DEP STILL has not triggered a TMDL for Barnegat Bay and is still studying the problem (see DEP:

Note the “action” DEP is proposing is not “action” at all, it’s more study. Note also the “targeted” scope, which represents a piecemeal effort that should be comprehensive in scope, like the Long Island Sound TMDL (and similarly successful Chesapeake Bay TMDL). See:

Here’s DEP’s lame “action” for there than decade long Barnegat Bay TMDL “development”:

  • Action: Continue the development of a targeted nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load

Strict regulation works. Water quality and ecological health improve.

But in 2021, DEP is still “continuing to develop” a TMDL that should have been adopted away back in 2000, like the Long Island Sound TMDL.

So, instead reductions in pollution, improvements in water quality, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, and increasing eelgrass and shellfish habitat (that EPA touts were the direct result of the Long Island Sound TMDL), Barnegat Bay still is suffering from more pollution, declining water quality, shrinking eelgrass, proliferating harmful algae blooms, and the Bay is on the verge of ecological collapse.

But DEP has not begun to implement a TMDL.

This is totally unacceptable.

In light of this stark contrast between LI Sound and Barnegat Bay, I urged intrepid NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle to ask EPA and DEP some tough questions in this email:

Jon – See EPA press release below.

EPA, NY, & Conn began the Long Island Sound TMDL cleanup plan back in 2000 – as a result:

“By 2014, wastewater treatment facilities achieved 94 percent of the nitrogen reduction goal established in the 2000 Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)”

In comparison,  after 8 years of denial by Christie DEP, NJ DEP STILL has not begun implementation of the TMDL for Barnegat Bay. DEP still “studying”! See “Phase II – Moving Science Into Action”

Why not call EPA Region II and ask them why they have not required DEP to comply with Clean Water Act TMDL requirements for the impaired Barnegat Bay? And why EPA has not yet adopted the nutrient criteria (water quality standards) that they promised over a decade ago?

Call and ask DEP when they will implement the TMDL and see water quality IMPROVEMENTS like in Long Island Sound. Instead, we get more HAB’s.


We’l keep you posted on Jon’s reply – but I’m not holding my breath.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

PSE&G Seeks Amendments To the NJ State Plan to Accommodate Wind Port At Delaware River Nuclear Complex

May 24th, 2021 No comments

State Officials Must Leverage Their Regulatory Power To Secure Public Benefits 

Source: “Japanese Nuclear Accident And US Response” – NEI, Public hearing on (4/7/11 – Trenton)

Source: “Japanese Nuclear Accident And US Response” – NEI, Public hearing on (4/7/11 – Trenton)

I just got an email from the State Planning Commission staff regarding a petition by PSE&G to amend the State Plan map to allow their proposed wind port at the location of the current PSE&G nuclear plant complex on the Delaware River.

The petition is a large document and can be found here , hit the link and scroll down to the bottom under the heading: Map Amendment/Amendments under Consideration/Lower Alloways Creek,  along with a supplemental document that OPA requested PSEG to provide. There is an extended public comment period which expires July 9 and another period before a planned September 21, 2021 SPC meeting agenda.

Because I saw rather large omissions in the application – and because this application provides an opportunity to leverage broader public policy goals, including: 1) environmental justice; 2) improvements to Delaware Bay aquatic life currently slaughtered by the nuclear power plants; 3) renewable energy and demand reduction; and 4) even a Duck Island State Park – I fired off this quick note to the State Planning Commission staff.

PSE&G has not been shy in leveraging huge concessions from BPU – including blackmail to demand billion dollar subsidies of their nuclear plants:

‘The board is being directed to pay a ransom,’ said Commissioner Bob Gordon.

They’ve dodged billion dollar compliance costs for cooling towers for the nuke plants and are killing billions of aquatic life in Delaware River and Bay (under a dirty deal supported by leading NJ conservationists).  

PSE&G received a billion dollar “stranded asset” bailout under the 1999 energy deregulation law:

PSE&G, New Jersey’s largest utility was left with more than $3 billion of such stranded assets last year as a result of deregulation, says Busch.

The “lion’s share” of this total consists of the company’s Salem, Hope Creek, Peach Bottom and Limerick nuclear power plants.

Of this, Busch tells, state regulators allowed for the recovery of $2.9 billion, $400 million through rate increases and the rest from the utility being able to write off the remaining life of the facilities.

PSE&G transferred hundreds of millions of dollars of cleanup costs for toxic pollution at old coal gas sites to ratepayers:

“PSE&G has determined that the estimated cost to remediate all MGP sites to completion could range between $431 million and $499 million,” according to their filing.

AND after all these ripoffs, they will make billions on their new  off shore wind monopoly.

So, Enough! State officials should shake the PSE&G money tree and secure compensation for public interests.

I would think unwinding PSE&G’s recent sale of the Duck Island power plant to a warehouse developer and development of a new urban waterfront State Park on Duck Island would be a small concession:

HRP envisions redeveloping the sites as state-of-the-art industrial parks to serve the growing need for regional warehouse-distribution hubs in central and northern New Jersey.

With all the growing opposition to warehouses, how has PSE&G kept this under the radar?


Please accept the following initial comments on the subject PSEG application. I reserve my right to submit detailed comments after a more thorough review of the application.

1) the petition repeatedly states that the project is done in cooperation and/or with the support of the NJ EDA.

The applicant should be required to specify the basis for these claims and clearly describe all NJ EDA financial, legal, technical, regulatory, and related support.

2. Attachment B states: (emphasis mine)

“Successfully implementing the strategies will result in a drastic reduction in New Jersey’s demand for fossil fuels with associated air quality benefits”

The applicant should be required to provide the regulatory basis and data to support and quantify for these two claims. What does “drastic” mean? What “air quality benefits” are contemplated? Traditional criteria pollutants and/or greenhouse gas emissions? Please quantify.

I’ve reviewed the BPU EMP and have not seen any linkage (in  regulation) between implementation of off shore wind and quantitative enforceable reductions in energy demand. Same concern regarding alleged air quality benefits.

In fact, I read the BPU EMP as suggesting just the opposite by emphasizing the compatibility of off shore wind and natural gas and integrating off shore wind with natural gas powered generation.

Is the applicant claiming that there will be a 1 -1 reduction in fossil generation for every megawatt of off shore wind? If so, how will this demand reduction be enforced?

3) I saw no discussion of the potential impacts on the nuclear generation complex, particularly regarding climate change driven sea level rise, storm surge, and Delaware River flood elevations.

Perhaps those issues are addressed in the DEP permitting processes, but they should be addressed from a planning perspective as well.

4) I saw no discussion of the oversight and risk issues under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

That is a significant gap that must be addressed.

I recall that there were NJ legislative hearings and other investigations in the wake of the Fukushima disaster regarding Delaware river elevations and the height of the intakes at these nuclear plants. These risks are magnified by climate change. Obviously, that critical issue must be addressed, particularly in light of climate change. See: “Japanese Nuclear Accident And US Response” – NEI, Public hearing on (4/7/11 – Trenton)

5) How will the overall project address longstanding concerns regarding cooling tower issues and fish and aquatic life kills?

6) I saw no discussion of the issues related to “environmental justice”. Gov. Murphy has issued Executive Orders and there is recently enacted “environmental justice” statute.

The applicant must be required to address numerous environmental justice considerations of this comprehensive project.

Given that the concerns I raise are fundamental, I urge you to suggest that the applicant withdraw the current application and resubmit a revised application that addresses these concerns.

Finally, PSEG recently shut down the Duck Island power plant. I understand that the PSEG Duck Island property was sold to a warehouse developer. Perhaps the SPC could make inquiry into this issue, and perhaps leverage a large “deal” whereby that land sale and development proposal could be unwound and the property donated to the State to form the anchor of a new urban waterfront State Park.


Bill Wolfe

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

“Green” Sycophants Provide False Praise To NJ Gov. Murphy For Killing Raritan Pipeline

May 23rd, 2021 No comments

Misplaced Focus On FERC Gives Murphy A Pass

FERC’s 2 Year Extension “does not change the state of play”

Critical pipeline decisions before Biden EPA, Congress, & federal Courts fly under the radar

[Updates below]

Once again, New Jersey media is reporting three egregious falsehoods, while missing the real story:

1) that the Murphy NJ DEP “denied” critical permits for a controversial natural gas pipeline under Raritan Bay known as the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (NSE);

2) that NJ DEP’s permit decision was the same as New York’s denial; and

3) that a recent FERC extension is significant.

Each one is factually false, and I went into great detail to explain exactly why the first two are false in this post.

Below, I explain why the third claim is false as well. And I mean factually false.

Here is the most recent example, in a May 21 story by 

But after New Jersey and New York both rejected necessary permits for the project, first in 2019 and again in 2020, that federal deadline passed without the pipeline having been built. FERC’s decision this week gives Williams two more years, until May 3, 2023, to keep NESE alive and find ways to secure the state approvals.

It is unclear how Williams will convince the two states to approve its project. Last year, both states said in their rejection letters that no compelling public need for the pipeline had been demonstrated.

A Williams spokesperson said the company intends to refile for state permits in New Jersey and New York this year.

While misleading readers by claiming that “New Jersey and New York both rejected necessary permits”, the media also is diverting focus to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), instead of on NJ DEP and US EPA where it belongs.

The critical State regulatory decision a State regulatory power that is not federally preempted and the only thing that can really kill the pipeline – is State denial of the Clean Water  Act’s Section 401 “Water Quality Certification” (WQC) (and related State Coastal Zone Management Act approval, which NJ DEP regulations link to the same regulations on the WQC. So I use these 2 approvals interchangeably).

The basis for permit denial by both NY and NJ noted in the story – obviously fed to the reporter by Green sycophants – i.e. the “no compelling public need for the pipeline had been demonstrated” – is clearly federally pre-empted and can not withstand legal challenge. (and NJ DEP only made that finding because NY DEC had already denied the WQC and thus DEP claimed the application was moot).

NY State DEC denied the WQC on the merits. NY DEC also based their denial on climate issues.

The NJ DEP did not.

Basically, NJ is relying on New York’s real and enforceable denial of the WQC. I explain that in detail in this post, with excerpts and links to the NY and NJ permit decision documents:

Giving Murphy & DEP credit for this is totally misguided. A focus on FERC is a diversion. And that is exactly Ed Potasnak’s (NJLCV) role.

Incredibly, even the NJ groups that are mis-focused on and criticizing FERC, know that FERC’s role and approvals are irrelevant, if the States deny the WQC.

Here is an excerpt of a May 20, 2021 press release issued by Clean Ocean Action that documents that: (emphasis mine)

Today, FERC Commissioner Rich Glick tweeted, “Today’s #Transco Order does not change the state of play. If NY&NJ do not change their minds & grant the project section 401 water quality certificates, @FERC cannot permit the enhancement project to proceed.” 

So the latest story is totally wrong – FERC’s 2 year extension is irrelevant – or as even FERC admits “does not change the state of play”.

I suspect that the FERC 2 year extension is designed to keep the door open in the event that the Biden EPA does not repeal a Trump EPA regulation stripping state power, or if Congress enacts pending legislation to strip states of WQC power, or if federal courts rule against these State powers (or if the Biden Justice Department settles the lawsuits).

The power of States to kill pipelines by using this Clean Water Act power is extremely controversial and under attack.

As far as I know, the Democrats in Congress have not used their power under the Congressional Review Act to kill the Trump EPA WQC stripping rule. See this WaPo story:

EPA adopted the final rule on June 1, 2020.

It does not look like the Biden Executive Order on Trump regulations specifically directed EPA to repeal that horrible final Trump EPA rule see: Sec. 7.  Other Revocations. Or it may be implicit in other sections of the Order, perhaps the litigation provisions. I don’t know.

I also have not reviewed the Trump EPA rule in detail and don’t know how it will impact State WQC power. I don’t know if State power to consider climate change – like NY did – will stand challenge by the gas industry. But I do know that these issues are very important and that they are being virtually ignored by NJ media.

Instead of attacking FERC – on misleading grounds and for the umpteenth time  – why aren’t pipeline foes publicly demanding that the Biden EPA repeal this Trump rule that stripped (or limited) States of the only power they had to kill pipelines?

The Biden administration has already backed the gas industry in litigation before the US Supreme Court, see:

Why are pipeline foes ignoring this betrayal?

These are the real issues at the federal level.

But they are being ignored by media and the green crowd, who refuse to make aggressive demands of Biden EPA.

As long as the media and NJ groups continue to focus on FERC, ignore EPA, and flat out lie about DEP’s “denial” of permits, Gov. Murphy and DEP get a pass and we miss opportunities to organize and pressure Murphy and DEP for a real pipeline kill.

This false praise and diversion to FERC is especially damaging, because, as the pipeline comply Williams stated:

A Williams spokesperson said the company intends to refile for state permits in New Jersey and New York this year.

That means that activists should be organizing and building public pressure on Gov. Murphy to deny the WQC when the company reapplies for DEP permits. The refiled permits will come in under a Trump EPA rule that stripped state power, so even stronger State leadership will be required.

Climate and anti-pipeline activists could be focused on the same issue at other NJ pipelines pending DEP approvals, including the PennEast pipeline.

Instead, they are wasting time criticizing FERC, advancing a lie about the real basis for the DEP “permit denial”, and providing false praise of Murphy’s DEP. This destroys their ability to organize around that issue.

Because if people believe that DEP already denied the WQC, then the Williams company has a free pass to work on DEP behind the scene to seek WQC approval. And they will be coming in under new federal EPA regulations that limit state power.

That is a very dangerous strategy that relies completely on NY DEC and Gov. Cuomo to hold the line.

It lets Biden EPA off the hook – they should be repealing the Trump EPA rule. The Biden Executive Order on Trump regulatory review could include that, but I’m not positive. Regardless, that Order could be used to pressure the Biden EPA to repeal the Trump rule.

It also opens the door for Murphy to point fingers and escape accountability in the event that the pipeline ultimately is approved. Because if he already killed NJ DEP permits, he’ll be able to blame NY or some other federal issue (like Trump EPA pre-emption, or FERC, or a federal lawsuit, like they are doing right now on the PennEast pipeline).

[Update 1: This Harvard law piece provides context and can help explain the basics – note that Biden EPA has not repealed the Trump EPA rollback rule:

[Update 2 – I just learned that NJ AG Grewal joined 20 other States in suing the Trump EPA on this rule. Remarkably, this got ZERO media attention in NJ – I don’t think AG Grewal even issued a press releasee. See:

Will Biden AG settle these cases? Will Biden EPA repeal the Trump EPA rollback? Why the silence by the green groups and media?  end update]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Madison Is Back To Brunch

May 23rd, 2021 No comments

BLM, Palestine Solidarity, Climate & Student Activism Eclipsed By Status Quo Politics

A Legacy Of Dissent Fades In the Neoliberal “Resistance” – Biden Mist


On our epic journey (in our 5th year now), I like to visit State Capitals and university towns, especially those with a rich political history.

So, while we’re in the Great Lakes region, we were sure to stop by Madison, Wisconsin.

Three years ago, we bypassed Madison for Ann Arbor and University of Michigan, where Students For a Democratic Society (SDS) was founded: (WiKi):

SDS developed from the youth branch of a socialist educational organization known as the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). LID itself descended from an older student organization, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, founded in 1905 by Upton Sinclair, Walter Lippmann, Clarence Darrow, and Jack London. Early in 1960, to broaden the scope for recruitment beyond labor issues, the Student League for Industrial Democracy were reconstituted as SDS .[1] They held their first meeting in 1960 on the University of Michigan campus at Ann Arbor, where Alan Haber was elected president. The SDS manifesto, known as the Port Huron Statement, was adopted at the organization’s first convention in June 1962,[2] based on an earlier draft by staff member Tom Hayden. Under Walter Reuther‘s leadership, the UAW paid for a range of expenses for the 1962 convention, including use of the UAW summer retreat in Port Huron.[3]

(we learn something every day! I was not aware that there was a direct organizational link between one of my favorite authors, Jack London, and SDS)

The University of Wisconsin at Madison has an equally glorious history of organizing with SDS and student activism and dissent:

The Winter and Spring of 1967 saw an escalation in the militancy of campus protests. Demonstrations against military-contractors and other campus recruiters were widespread, and ranking and the draft issues grew in scale. The school year had started with a large demonstration against Dow Chemical Company recruitment at the University of Wisconsin in Madison on October 17. Peaceful at first, the demonstrations turned to a sit-in that was violently dispersed by the Madison police and riot squad, resulting in many injuries and arrests. A mass rally and a student strike then closed the university for several days. A nation-wide coordinated series of demonstrations against the draft led by members of the Resistance, the War Resisters League, and SDS added fuel to the fire of protest. After conventional civil rights tactics of peaceful pickets seemed to have failed, the Oakland, California, Stop the Draft Week ended in mass hit and run skirmishes with the police. The huge (100,000 people) October 21 March on the Pentagon saw hundreds arrested and injured. Night-time raids on draft offices began to spread.

Take a look at that incredible history of  Protests & Social Action at UW-Madison during the 20th Century from the UW archives, especially this from the decade of the 1960’s.

During the 1960’s, UW students were politically active and protested (hit links for in depth materials):

  • stores in the South to allow African-Americans to sit at lunch counters
  • whether the House Un-American Activities Committee should be retained.
  • U.S. nuclear testing.
  • for the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
  • George Wallace
  • held a “Teach-In” about the Vietnam conflict
  • the draft
  • supported Senator Edward Kennedy
  • Dow Chemical, manufacturer of napalm & Agent Orange used in Vietnam (a general strike)
  • against the CIA
  • Martin Luther King assassination
  • the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (68)
  • workers rights and the grape boycott
  • strike with The Black People’s Alliance
  • against cuts in the state welfare budget.

Given that history, we were surprised by the quietude of a lovely Saturday May afternoon.

After walking through the Capital, the UW campus, and downtown, there were virtually no signs of political engagement.

We came across just one small demonstration at the Capitol, in solidarity with Palestine (joined across the globe in hundreds of cities, with one of the larger US protests in San Francisco). The young man on the left is a fine fellow. I only had $7 on me, so he gave me a discount on a copy of John Reed’s “Ten Days That Shook The World”. I returned the favor and gave him a free copy of Jack’s London’s classic “The Iron Heel” (with original cover from the London museum):




Maybe we arrived too early (it was after 3 pm). Local news reported that last Saturday, there was a larger solidarity event, with over 100 folks turned out.

Here’s what the Capitol looked like:


Here’s what the streets looked like:






Here’s what the campus looked like:


Madison has gone back to brunch.

What explains the quietude?

It could be reaction to the police violence and “riots” at BLM protests last summer, where the Mayor imposed a curfew (be sure to scroll down and check out the “scary” photo gallery published by local media.)

Or it could be continuing COVID fears.

Or it could be because the students have gone home for the summer.

Or it could be “except for Palestine” politics.

Or it could be a broader failure of the left and progressives, who increasingly are being co-opted – with the help of AOC, the Squad, and various “Resistance” organizations, sadly even Bernie Sanders and The Sunrise Movement – by the Biden and identity politics “Progressive Neoliberal” Democrats.

Or it could be the failure of the media, who are basically saying that Trump was the source of all evil and now that he’s gone, the Democrats are Socialists and have solved all problems with the COVID recovery and infrastructure initiatives and Speaker Pelosi’s Kente cloth vests.

Or it is could be all of the above.

Either way, it sucks.

The climate emergency accelerates and is not impacted by spin and political games.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

PFAS “Forever Chemicals” Found In Groundwater at Over 900 TIMES NJ DEP Standards At Curtis Specialty Superfund Site Along The Delaware River

May 20th, 2021 No comments

PFAS Contamination Under Investigation For Almost 2 Years

Neither EPA Nor NJ DEP Have Mandated Cleanup Requirements

Continuity of Corporate Control


This is a quick followup on my recent posts about discovery of PFAS “forever chemicals” in groundwater at the Curtis Specialty Papers Superfund Site in Milford NJ, along the Delaware river. I have written critically about publicly available information, see this and this and this.

I haven’t heard back yet from EPA Region 2 Acting Administrator Walter Mugdan in response to my May 8 email requesting that EPA re-open the remedial investigation, formally consult USFWS, and mandate cleanup.

But NJ DEP has responded to my OPRA request and I have some of the documents and data.

The surface and groundwater data show that some sampled PFAS levels in groundwater are more than 900 times the NJ DEP standards. (glad to provide the data on request)

An April 23, 2021 letter to EPA from International Paper summarized the most recent groundwater sampling data (March 2021)

Screen Shot 2021-05-20 at 11.44.16 AM

Note that all samples exceed NJ DEP standards.

Note that Monitoring Well 15 (MW-15) shows a level of 11.90 ug/l – that is 915 times higher than the DEP groundwater quality standard of 0.013ug/l.

Note that the NJ DEP drinking water standard (published June 20, 2020) is not even mentioned. Instead, the much high EPA health advisory level is cited.

Some of the March 2021 sampling data are higher than the concentrations of some of the data initially reported to DEP and that formed the basis for the corporate certified “voluntary” Classification Exception Area (CEA). This conflicts with the requirements of the DEP CEA regulations, because pollutant concentrations are supposed to decline over time, not increase. And there is no provision in DEP CEA regulations for a corporation to voluntarily establish a CEA. A CEA is an important regulatory document that is issued by DEP, not private corporations.

Here is a map of the CEA – note the Delaware River. According to the CEA, the groundwater flow is west towards the Delaware River (the PFAS is in red and the VOC’s are in blue.):

Screen Shot 2021-05-20 at 11.59.45 AM

Despite the know groundwater (and pollutant) migration towards the Delaware River, there was just 1 river sample taken downriver from the plant.

There was no sampling of fish and wildlife (biota) or river sediments.

EPA and DEP have know about the PFAS contamination for almost 2 years (since sometime before July 2019). How did they keep this issue quiet for so long?

During this same timeframe, NJ DEP issued press releases and got numerous favorable press reports – particularly by NJ Spotlight – reporting about how they were so stringently regulating PFAS (this regulatory activity was described by Acting Commissioner LaTourette at his recent Senate confirmation hearing as “the best in the world”).

But in fact, this case shows that DEP is NOT enforcing those stringent standards and cleanup requirements and is keeping known PFAS contamination from public view.

Here the chronology, from a January 28, 2020 letter from International’s paper to EPA (DEP is copied):

Screen Shot 2021-05-20 at 11.57.38 AM

Finally, neither EPA nor DEP have mandated any groundwater cleanup requirements or broader sampling of river surface water quality, sediments and biota.

Nor have they pursued natural resource damage (NRD) claims, which is not at all surprising given the fact that current NJ DEP Acting Commissioner LaTourette previously served as a corporate lawyer who sued DEP and crippled the DEP NRD program.

Other than that, EPA and DEP and NJ Spotlight are doing a heckofajob!

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: