Florio Lets Liability Cat Out of the Bag

EPA must stand by Regional Administrator Enck’s commitment and their own science and reject the Dupont proposal.

sun sets on mercury laced Pompton Lake (1/5/12)

Dupont has a big mercury problem in Pompton Lakes, NJ (in addition to the cancer cluster and vapor intrusion).

Scientifically and legally, the problem is similar to General Electric’s (GE) problem with dumping toxic and bioaccumulative PCB’s in the Hudson River, where, according to EPA:

From approximately 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its capacitor manufacturing plants at the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities into the Hudson River.

That GE dumping poisoned 200 miles of the Hudson River, leading EPA to declare that portion of the River a Superfund site and forcing GE to cleanup the river at a cost of over $500 million.

Like GE, for almost 100 years, Dupont used and disposed of mercury compounds at their explosives manufacturing facility.

Like GE, mercury air emissions and mercury dumping on the Dupont site have led to significant off site releases, so that soils and sediments along the the Acid Brook, Pompton Lake, and natural resource and the downriver region are poisoned.

fish consumption warning posted on Pompton Lake

Mercury is highly toxic to humans, fish and wildlife – it bioaccumulates through the food chain. Its effects are magnified by predators up the food chain and persist for many years.

Like in the the Hudson River, because of mercury  pollution, it is unsafe to eat freshwater fish in NJ – and consumption warnings are posted on Pompton Lake (but largely ignored).

Dupont wiped out an entire fishery.

And like Hudson River PCB’s, EPA has extensive national scientific and regulatory experience with mercury in the Great lakes region that is relevant to Dupont Pompton Lakes.

Like GE, Dupont wants to minimize the cost of cleanup and resists EPA cleanup mandates.

I don’t know about GE/Hudson, but in Pompton lakes, EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck has given the community multiple assurances that EPA will hold Dupont accountable and strictly enforce environmental laws. For example, in an October 14, 2010 reply letter, RA Enck assured me that:

You have my commitment that the Environmental Protection Agency will ensure that Dupont will fulfill its RCRA obligations for this facility.

But Dupont has proposed a partial cleanup plan of just a 26 acre portion of the 250 acre Pompton Lake – no downriver sediment removal is being considered at this time. Dozens of areas of toxic soil contamination on the Dupont site still have not been cleaned up (after 30 years).

The plan is not only for only a small part of the Lake, but it is based on flawed science.

The Dupont plan must be approved by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the most important environmental law you probably never even heard of (and the polluters like it that way).

But now the Dupont plan is in EPA’s lap, which in some ways makes Dupont’s mercury problem EPA’s problem too.

Was Dupont’s plan reviewed and approved by EPA’s national scientific experts on mercury and USFWS scientists? Here’s why we need to know answers to those questions:

I)  Florio Lets the Liability Cat Out of the Bag

Jim Florio, sponsor of 1980 Superfund law, speaks at community rally (1/5/12)

The residents of Pompton Lakes want the site designated and cleaned up by EPA under the Superfund program.

Thus far, their primary reasons for wanting Superfund instead of RCRA is that Superfund would bring more federal resources, a higher priority and visibility, and more community involvement in cleanup decisions.

But Jim Florio, Former NJ Governor and original sponsor of the 1980 Superfund law, just let the legal liability cat out of the bag.

The Superfund liability scheme adds another very good reason to use Superfund to compel Dupont to conduct a comprehensive and complete cleanup of the entire site, Pompton Lake, and downriver and compensate the public for huge natural resource and ecological damages they have caused (just like GE in the Hudson).

Florio went out of his way to emphasize that under Superfund, the legal liability scheme is known as “strict, joint, and several”.

Practically, what this legalese essentially means is that:

• Dupont is 100% on the hook for the ENTIRE problem
• EPA does not have to prove negligence  by Dupont
• EPA has enormous power to force Dupont to do a complete cleanup.

This is key because mercury pollution comes from multiple sources: coal power plants, garbage incinerators, and smelters and industrial sources.

Dupont is arguing that they are responsible ONLY for the mercury they allegedly contributed – and only via Acid Brook runoff, NOT THE TOTAL HISTORIC MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS FROM THE DUPONT PLANT AND ALL ON SITE DISPOSAL PRACTICES.

EPA has agreed to this bogus Dupont argument and that is why only a 6 inch deep small 26 acre portion of the 250 acre Lake (the “Acid Brook Delta”) sediments are being dredged.

Dupont could not get away with that under Superfund.

While it is true that EPA has less legal leverage under RCRA that Superfund, EPA still could do the right thing by forcing Dupont to scientifically establish how much mercury came from their facility and how much came from other sources.

But Dupont has not done any of that kind of work and EPA therefore has no scientific basis upon which to approve the plan. (and that’s just EPA’s problem #1)

II)  Dupont’s Science is Flawed and Can Not Be Approved BY EPA

EPA has done an enormous amount of scientific work on mercury.

In contrast with this rigorous EPA body of work, Dupont’s various regulatory documents rely on cursory and flawed science and assessment methods.

These flawed Dupont approaches provide the basis for the Dupont partial Acid Brook Delta cleanup plan and ecological assessment.

Dupont’s science and methods are inconsistent with, do not meet the rigorous standards of, and contradict EPA science. [Update: See

• EPA Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical Guidance
• EPA Region 8 Ecological Risk Characterization
• ASTM Method E1706 ]

As such, EPA can not approve of them by approving a cleanup plan based on them.

The primary EPA scientific sources for mercury, for our purposes are (there are lots others):

• EPA Report to Congress
• EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of Mercury Air Toxics Standard
• EPA Great lakes Mercury Initiative

(examples of additional studies of scientific and regulatory relevance are the

• NOAA Report to Congress on Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes
• various US Fish and Wildlife Service bird studies and fish studies and
• the 1996 Biological Opinion of the USFWS NJ Field Office
• NJ DEP’s 2002 proposed “wildlife criteria” SWQS for mercury
• EPA’s letter of support of the NJ DEP proposed SWQS wildlife criteria

Compared with the EPA Recommendations to Congress on ecologically protective mercury fish tissue levels, fish in Pompton lakes contain 2 – 10 TIMES safe levels.

Depending on trophic level of the fish, the EPA finding is 0.077 ppm – 0.346 ppm.

According to DEP, the fish in Pompton Lake average 0.72 ug/g (ppm).

[Update: A May 6, 2008 DEP email to Dupont specifically addressed this issue:

in order to present a balanced comparison, DuPont shall compare the average concentrations of mercury in largemouth bass from Pompton Lake to the regional average of 0.46 ug/g mercury in largemouth bass and/or the statewide average (0.44 ug/g) in the Remedial Investigation Report.

Judith Enck, EPA region 2 Administrator came to NJ to warns residents about risks of eating contaminated fish from waters nearby toxic sites

Additionally, Dupont’s ecological risk analysis is flawed, as it relies too heavily on alleged no impacts on the benthic (bottom) macroinvertebrate community structure. Community structure is a poor indicator of bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and ecological risk that I haven’t seen used anywhere else. And even if you were looking at macro invertebrates, you would be doing so to consider food chain bioaccumulation, so you would look at tissue concentration of mercury, not community structure.

[Update: I may have misread the Dupont documents on this point - macro-invertibrate community structure is of relevance, and YOY fish are trophic indicator in food web design - see Mercury Cycling in Stream Ecosystems. 3. Trophic Dynamics and Methylmercury Bioaccumulation - Where Dupont draws misleading conclusion is with this assertion:

However, tissue concentrations measured in the delta in 2005 do not indicate an increased accumulation of mercury by chironomids and YOY fish tissue relative to the tissue data collected during the 1998 ecological investigation. - end update]

[Update 2 - Here is what I meant to say, as provided by DEP's Ecological Evaluation Guidance says about limitations of macro invertebrate sampling:

Some limitations are that they do not identify the contaminant responsible for the observed toxicity, population impacts are not readily translated into contaminant remediation goals, and results are often confounded by variables not related to contaminant toxicity (predation, seasonal differences, physicochemical sediment characteristics, food availability).]

Similarly, Dupont sampled “young of year” (YOY) fish, which minimizes bioaccumulation as young fish haven’t lived long enough to bioaccumulate the mercury in the system.

Here are additional serious flaws in Dupont’s analysis:

1) I didn’t see anything in Dupont’s documents concerning terrestrial mammals

2) There was no data or discussion of the bird sampling – other than a cursory claim of low/no adverse impact on 4 of 5 bird species sampled. What bird species? What tissue (or egg shell) concentrations found? What adverse impacts were considered?

3) There was no discussion of biological mechanisms that convert mercury they propose to leave in the sediments into bioavailable forms.

4) There was no data provided or consideration given to Dupont’s historic use of mercury compounds in manufacture.

5) There was no data or estimate of Dupont’s mercury air emissions and how those emissions deposited locally.

6) There was no dating or chemical analysis of soil or sediment cores that would suggest historic patterns of mercury deposition.

7) The full extent of mercury deposition and off-site release from the Dupont facility has not be adequately characterized.

There was no valid characterization of “mercury background”.

[According to the USEPA, background refers to constituents that are not influenced by the discharges from a site, and is usually described as naturally occurring or anthropogenic (USEPA, 2002a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. "Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[ According to NJ DEP Ecological Evaluation Guidance:

Background area samples should be collected from an area outside the site’s potential influence and not in locations directly influenced by or in proximity to other obvious sources of contamination.

9) There was no data provided to support apportionment of mercury in the environment as Dupont alleges to minimize their cleanup obligations (i.e. Dupont share and other source share).

10) There was no data or estimate sof total mercury loading;  mechanisms and estimates of methylation; fate/transport modeling; bioaccumulation mechanisms; and human and wildlife exposure and risk assessments from air emissions, contaminated soil, surface water runoff of mercury disposed on site.

I assume that some of this data and analysis were provided in the original ecological assessment submitted to NJ DEP in accordance with State cleanup regulations (and rubber stamped by DEP's broken cleanup program).

[Full disclosure Update: in 1995, a former NJ Governor, with DEP's help, was shown to misrepresent the science on mercury in fish tissue to downplay risks - when I disclosed this scheme, management retaliated and I was forced out of DEP as a whistle-blower. Hit that link for all the documentation.]

Lois Gibbs speaks at community rally (1/5/12)

However, this is an EPA federal RCRA action that must be EPA approved. Accordingly,  all the documents must be made available to the public during the comment period. That has not been done in this case so EPA can not approve the Dupont plan based on documents and analyses that have not been made publicly available.

III)  EPA is Required to Consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service

RCRA regulations require EPA to consult with federal agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the RCRA permit process.

We advised EPA Regional Administrator Enck on November 17, 2011 that RCRA regulations include full federal partner review including, but not limited to, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, pursuant to regulation 40 CFR 124.10(c)(iii).

Certainly such consultation is required BEFORE EPA issues a “tentative approval” and proposes a draft RCRA permit for public comment.

Thus far, it appears that EPA has not complied with these consultation requirements prior to issuing the draft permit.

IV)  Dupont is Required to Comply with Clean Water Act Standards

The federal Clean Water Act applies to Dupont’s water pollution discharges.

The CWA also applies to the RCRA permit process, which must meet CWA requirements.

NJ DEP State surface water quality standards (SWQS) have been approved by EPA and are federally enforceable. They trigger enforceable requirements on pollution discharge that may “cause or contribute to” a violation of a SWQS.

NJ DEP SWQS designate Pompton Lake for recreational use (fishing, swimming,etc), aquatic life protections, and water supply.

The SWQS have policies and narrative and numeric standards that the RCRA permit and Dupont clean up must comply with.

The Dupont proposed cleanup plan provides no discussion or demonstration regarding compliance with the legally applicable and binding provisions of the CWA or NJ SWQS.

Accordingly, EPA can not approve the Dupont proposal as a final RCRA permit in the absence of this compliance demonstration.

EPA must stand by their own science. According to the EPA supported NJ DEP wildlife criteria proposal. According to the DEP SWQS proposal (which USFWS and EPA supported)::

“As part of the 1994 approval of the New Jersey SWQS triennial review process, the USEPA, in collaboration with the USFWS, indicated that the human health based criteria for PCBs were not protective of the threatened and endangered species bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. As a result, the Service prepared a Biological Opinion document in 1996 (Biological opinion on the effects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the state of New Jersey’s surface water quality standards on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey. 1996). The lack of wildlife criteria for DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs was a concern to the USFWS. DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative pollutants that are persistent in the environment, accumulate in biological tissues, and biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics, the concentration of these contaminants may increase as they are transferred up through various food chain levels. As a result, adverse impacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish-eating) organisms may arise from low surface water concentrations. The peregrine falcon is not a piscivorous species. However, it feeds on other piscivorous bird species. Therefore, biomagnification may be of even greater concern for the peregrine falcon.

The USEPA developed site-specific wildlife criteria for the Great Lakes based on a number of factors, including the toxicity of various pollutants and their tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify. In addition, the USEPA gathered and applied information about piscivorous wildlife endemic to the Great Lakes region in its derivation of water quality criteria. That effort resulted in the promulgation of numeric surface water concentrations designed to be protective of all avian and mammalian wildlife using Great Lakes waters. “

EPA must  now stand by Regional Administrator Enck’s commitment and their own science and reject the Dupont proposal.

1) Dupont’s proposed cleanup of Acid Brook Delta is only partial – we demand that all mercury and all pollutants be completely and permanently cleaned up so that the Lake is fishable and swimmable as mandated by the federal Clean Water Act and NJ Water Pollution Control Act;

2) The original 1992 EPA issued RCRA permit must be enforced and has numerous loopholes that must be closed – all RCRA “SWMU’s” and off site releases which are sources of toxic soil, sediment, vapor, and groundwater contamination must be cleaned up under more aggressive schedules and obligations than those EPA unilaterally imposed in a “compliance schedule modification” on May 4, 2010 without public notice and comment;

3)  Natural resource damages and toxic fish and wildlife impacts of Dupont’s pollution have not been assessed fully and must be assessed and the public fully compensated;

4) EPA must take enforcement action and collect fines such that vapor mitigation systems are immediately installed in all impacted homes.

The plume area may be larger than currently thought, when subsurface infrastructure migration is considered.

Rally before EPA RCRA permit hearing (1/5/12)

Toxic daycare appears located in an idyllic country setting - but that's an old landfill in the backyard (read on!)

Imagine the anguish of being told your child was exposed to cancer causing industrial chemicals while at daycare. Our kids went to daycare, so I understand a parent’s concerns and fears – but our worst health fear for our kids was contraction of pink eye.

Yet, almost 3 years to the day after the tragic Kiddie Kollege episode where 60 toddlers were poisoned by mercury vapors while at daycare (see  NY Times “After Mercury Pollutes a Day Care Center, Everyone Points Elsewhere”) that’s exactly what another group of New Jersey parents were told last week.

And again, similar to the Kiddie Kollege case, (see NY Times “Memo Shows Agency Knew of Danger in Child Care Building“ ) the DEP knew or should have known and failed to take steps to prevent the problem or adequately warn parents.

So here we are again. We were disgusted but not surprised to learn that yet another toxic daycare center was discovered operating in NJ in Middlesex Boro. This is an intolerable situation – DEP must stop putting our kids at risk and engaging in crisis management, reacting to one scandal after another.

Last week, the local newspaper reported: New tests show elevated chemical vapor levels in Middlesex Borough preschool

MIDDLESEX BOROUGH — A second round of tests has confirmed the presence of elevated vapor levels of two chemicals inside a local church preschool, but not in amounts anywhere near enough to shut the facility, the borough’s environmental engineering firm has reported…. According to Ferguson, the latest air samples showed levels of TCE fumes at 16 micrograms per cubic meter in the preschool room at the church complex and 9.7 micrograms per cubic meter in the youth lounge. The findings for benzene fumes were eight micrograms per cubic meter in the preschool room and 13 micrograms per cubic meter in the youth lounge.

“These levels do not pose an adverse health risk,” said Ferguson. …

Mayor John Fuhrmann, who attended Monday night’s meeting, said he’s satisfied with the way the company is handling the tests, adding that he expects the firm to present a remediation proposal “as soon as possible.” 

Both Fuhrmann and Ferguson noted that the source of the vapors has not been determined, but said the firm is working to find that out.

Trichloroethylene is a common household cleaning solvent, often used as a degreaser, Ferguson said. It is odorless in the amounts found in Sadat’s air samples.

First, I suspected that the local reporter got badly spun, because right off the bat I knew that Mr. Ferguson was factually in error and was therefore misleading parents with his bogus claim that the levels posed no adverse health risk.

Here are some facts: The DEP indoor air level for benzene, a proven human carcinogen, is 2 microgram per cubic meter. The reported levels in this preschool are 13 micrograms, which is more than 6 times or  650% higher than DEP’s indoor air level.

The DEP indoor air level for TCE, a proven human carcinogen, is 3 micrograms per cubic meter. The reported levels are 16 micrograms, which is more than 5 times or at least 533% higher than DEP’s indoor air level. In August tests, the TCE levels were even higher (the reader can confirm this and read the complete DEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance document here).

Yes, these are DEP’s chronic indoor exposure levels, but there is great uncertainty regarding children’s health effects and exposure is completely preventable.

Children are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of cancer causing chemicals because their lungs are still under development; they have high inhalation rates relative to body mass, high lung surface area per body weight, low lung clearance rates, narrow lung airways, and immature immune systems. Children metabolize chemicals differently than adults and are far more vulnerable to chemical exposure than healthy adult males used to calculate most risk assessments.

The “acceptable risk” of a child’s exposure to industrial chemicals while at a daycare is ZERO (0) – “ND” or “non-detect”

Parents can refer to federal toxicological profiles of benzene and TCE here – the common sense bottom line is to minimize exposure:

“Living near gasoline fueling stations or hazardous waste sites may increase exposure to benzene. People are advised not to have their families play near fueling stations, manufacturing plants, or hazardous waste sites.“)

Second, I was baffled as to why a Mayor would be satisfied with this totally unacceptable situation.

Well, it turns out that the source of the problem is the Middlesex Boro landfill and/or underground gasoline storage tanks (UST) 100 feet or so from the day care center. So we now understand why the Mayor would have an incentive to minimize the problem.

Third, I was curious as to why a consultant that is known for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites was suggesting that common household cleaning compounds might be a source of the problem in the pre-school (and not the old landfill and USTs). These volatile organic industrial chemicals have poisoned soil and groundwater at hundreds of sites in New Jersey, including the indoor air of nearby buildings.

Well, in turns out that the consultant works for Middlesex Boro, who owns the liability for the landfill and UST problems, so again we now understand why the consultant’s first loyalty is to his client and why they too have professional and legal liabilty incentives to minimize the problem.

So I took a trip out there. I spoke with the day care center owner, toured the site, spoke with local officials and neighbors, and took some photographs. 

What I saw confirmed my suspicions, so I filed OPRA requests with the Middlesex Boro clerk’s office and the DEP to get the data and smoking guns.

I also will send a letter to DEP Commissioner Mauriello that makes a series of recommendations, the most important being immediate installation of a subslab vapor recovery system at the day care center. If such a system is not installed immediately (less than 2 weeks) then the facility should be closed until a system is installed.(the letter is similar to Memo to DEP: Protect Kids – Enforce the Law

DEP recently oversaw installation of a system at Atlantic Highlands Elementary School, where indoor air levels were significantly lower than in this Middlesex preschool. (see: A Win for the Kids and Parents of Atlantic Highlands

US EPA installed a system in the Franklin Township Elementary School where, again, where levels were significant lower than in Middlesex.(see EPA Final Franklin Elementary School Presentation)

The children of Middlesex Boro deserve at least the same level of protection as that provided by DEP and EPA in other school settings.

More shoes to drop in this story, as we explain what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who is accountable.

Part II – Corzine daycare center reforms failed (Wednesday)

Part III – DEP ignored repeated warnings which led to tragedy (Thursday)

Part IV – What the case files say – (pending OPRA replies)

Part V – The solution installed – subslab vapor mitigation system (pending)

Part VI – Lessons learned and real reform agenda (pending)

groundwater pollution monitoring wells at perimeter of landfill almost in backyards of surrounding homes.

Raritan Bay estuary, site of proposed wind project behind Bayshore Regional Sewer Authority Plant

[Update: 10/25/09 - Star Ledger - Proposed New DEP Regulations Renew Sniping Among Environmentalists

I support wind power, but will not sit idly by and watch as wind lobbyists dictate DEP policy and permit decisions. And we are not fooled by cynical PR stunts by the Governor to create a false appearance of reform - see Corzine Executive Oder #148.

We have been writing a lot about undue and improper political pressure on DEP (for example, see: Political Pressure on DEP – How The Game is Played where we disclosed exactly how former DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell and State Senator Sweeney (D-Gloucester) are strong arming DEP to issue wind approvals in Delaware Bay).

But the politics have gotten so bad that now even the DEP Commissioner is complaining about it (see this for DEP emails linking wind lobbyists, the Governor's Office, and DEP Commissioner).

Some of this improper pressure recently resulted in criminal indictments of State Assemblymen Van Pelt (R-Ocean) and Smith (D-Hudson) (See: DEP Involved in Corruption Scandal).

Assemblyman Van Pelt was indicted for taking a bribe to use his legislative powers to pressure DEP to issue CAFRA permits. He bragged that DEP "worked for him", that he knew how "to work the channels" at DEP, and  that he had sucessfully pressured DEP to issue prior CAFRA and wetlands permits. (see Van Pelt criminal complaint here).

On its face, the Van Pelt's indictment creates an appearance of impropriety in terms of political influence on the DEP permit process. This requires investigation to get the facts surrounding Van Pelt's influence on DEP, if ONLY to vindicate DEP and restore public confidence in DEP (see Star Ledger: N.J. environmental groups call for investigation of DEP in light of corruption arrests).

Governor Corzine's own EO 148 admits the problem, but Corzine cynically diverts attention to local officials (instead of State officials) and limits solutions to the local level in only a handful of towns:

WHEREAS, because of the nature of the reported conduct on the part of these local officials charged with corruption, and particularly those who choose to remain in office, and in furtherance of this administration’s commitment to ensuring the integrity of all State approval processes, it is appropriate to provide for additional scrutiny of applications for State approvals that involve jurisdictions headed by officials charged in the corruption probe who remain in office; (link to EO 148)

Assemblyman Smith was  indicted for taking a bribe and promising to get DEP approval of a toxic site cleanup (NFA letter) in Jersey City in order to build a daycare center and public housing. The Smith criminal complaint has a wired cooperating witness (CW) saying that Smith called DEP Commissioner Mauriello. The CW's wire then says someone from DEP called Smith back and that- after the callback from DEP - that everything is OK in securing DEP approvals. The Bergen Record reported on leaked DEP emails that show at least 7 DEP staffers were involved in responding to Smith's request, so clearly Smith was able to get the DEP's immediate attention (see Bergen Record: DEP e-mails follow lawmaker's request). And the criminal complaint also reveals a senior DOT official saying that the DOT approvals for the project was a good  "business opportunity" for a colleague in DOT overseeing the approval. (see Smith criminal complaint here)

But there have been a series of other highly visible cases where the political pressure on DEP may not have risen to criminal conduct, but nonetheless were clearly unethical and harmful of human health and the environment. Many of these embarrassing episodes have gotten significant media coverage, such that DEP's integrity is reasonably subject to question by a skeptical public.

The latest episode in the saga of politicization of DEP decisions involves a wind project at the BayShore Regional Sewer Authority. The Asbury Park Press wrote about it Saturday (see: State: Wind turbine plan must satisfy DEP rules )but that coverage got it wrong - we do NOT oppose this wind project - and the APP story really missed the most significant aspect of the story that we leaked to them.

In a September 23, 2009 e-mail to Kenny Esser from Governor Jon Corzine’s office, Fred DeSanti, a consultant for the project, asked for “direct intervention at this time from the front office” to stop the state Department of Environmental Protection from imposing “unreasonable and inflexible requirements” that would delay the project and possibly jeopardize the more than $3 million in federal stimulus funds.

DEP Assistant Commisioner Nancy Wittenberg - no tree hugger and a former NJ Builders Association lobbyist - sent an email to DEP Commissioner Mauriello that complained about Esser leaning on her. DEP Commissioner Mauriello echoed her frustration.

The next day, on September 24th, Mauriello sent an e-mail to his top staff complaining about being leaned on by the Governor’s office:

“[The attached] illustrates the pressure that Nancy [sic] is under related to this project, and we have little ability to control it and of course the full story and context does not get represented with these folks, but what else is new.”

So what else is new? Right.

Mauriello’s reply illustrates how bad morale at DEP has become due to constant political dictates from lobbyists and the Governor’s office to compromise environmental protections, suppress or distort science, and relax enforcement  in order to promote economic development.

This has got to stop – DEP independence and integrity must be restored.

Despite the fact that wind power is a laudable and much needed renewable source of energy, the ends do not justify the means. Promotion of wind must not be allowed to compromise the integrity of DEP or protections of natural resources.

To begin to restore DEP integrity and public confidence in the agency, we need and independent investigation to document the causes and extent of the problem. Based on that investigation, a series of corrective action reform measures must be put in place.

One element of that reform effort must be transparency and disclosure requirements about exactly who DEP is meeting with behind closed doors.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant and can counteract the power of special interests by empowering citizen watchdogs and news media (see: This Is Why We Need Transparency at DEP).

Another necessary reform measure is whistleblower protections. DEP staffers witness corrupt practices on a daily basis, but rightfully don’t want to sacrifice their careers disclosing wrongdoing. We need to empower the agency professionals and block the current widespread practice of retaliation for conscientious public disclosures of mismanagement, manipulation of science, and threats to public health and the environment. NJ’s current whistleblower laws do not protect employees who disclose such problems publicly. (see: Star Ledger: End Political Influence on DEP Regulators).

Another must include restrictions on what are legally known as “ex parte” communications to DEP. An ex parte communication is a communication to DEP from any person  about a pending DEP matter that occurs in the absence of other parties to the matter and without public notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication. People often refer to these communications as “one-sided,” “off-the-record,” or private communications between a DEP staffer and any person concerning a matter that is pending or impending before the DEP. According to California regulations:

Rules regarding ex parte communications have their roots in constitutional principles of due process and fundamental fairness. With public agencies, ex parte communications rules also serve an important function in providing transparency. Ex parte communications may contribute to public cynicism that decisions are based more on special access and influence than on the facts, the laws, and the exercise of discretion to promote the public interest.

Ex parte communications are fundamentally offensive in adjudicative proceedings because they involve an opportunity by one party to influence the decision maker outside the presence of opposing parties, thus violating due process requirements. Such communications are not subject to rebuttal or comment by other parties. Ex parte communications can frustrate a lengthy and painstaking adjudicative process because certain decisive facts and arguments would not be reflected in the record or in the decisions. Finally, ex parte contacts may frustrate judicial review since the record would be missing such communications.

Atlantic County Utilities Authority wind project - Atlantic City, NJ

shotgun bearing troops in riot gear disrupt a Thomas Merton Center G 20 peaceful rally & march (9/25/09)

[Update 1 - I was 1 of the 50 who filed complaints w/CPRB - see: Protesters blast police response, Oakland arrests ]

[Update 2 - just learned that this was a National Special Security Event

[Update 3: 10/2/09  watch Democracy Now! segment

[Update 4: 11/1/11 - I just came across this video of the G 20 in Toronto in June 2010. Looks really bad. One police tactic I saw also used in Pittsburgh was when police (in full riot gear) marched in lockstep, aggressively towards protesters, while pounding their shields as they walked. It sickened me. I thought of Nazi Germany and Rome. - end updates]

My kids go to school in Pittsburgh, so on Thursday I headed out to see them and witness and participate in the G 20 Summit protests.

Because the G 20 Summit provides a world stage, I was there to warm of “climate destruction ahead” and to advocate for a substantive global warming agenda for the upcoming December Copenhagen Climate Conference negotiations. But there are other major pressing economic policy  issues related to the need to regulate global finance in light of economic collapse, as well as to re-conceptualize global “free trade” and economic development frameworks to protect labor and promote economic and social justice.

riot gear clad troops push through crowd at a peaceful permitted G 20 protest rally

I was appalled by what I saw – and I’m obviously not talking about my kids. It sure looked different than the welcoming Pittsburgh I visited, photographed and posted here.

I’ve never been on the wrong end of a shotgun before. Face to face – it is not a good feeling.

Downtown Pittsburgh in military lockdown.

But that’s not nearly all I saw. There were the dogs, Humvee roadblocks, no pedestrian zones, downtown lockdown, fenced off areas, designated protest zone, hundreds (thousands?) of military troops, helicopters, constant overhead military aircraft (F-16’s?), chemical gases, and even – the first time ever deployed in the US – ear splitting sonic crowd control technology.

There were a handful of anarchists –  some prone to violence – among a few thousand pecaceful protesters. Dozens of college students, observers, media, and everyday local people were included in the crowds that police indiscriminately controlled and managed as violent. (listen to this for police state tactics)

Overwhelmingly peaceful people were met by a massive show of militarized police force. Riot gear armored police and military troops significantly outnumbered protestors.

I personally witnessed provocative, intimidating and repressive military tactics I had imagined were limited to third world countries, not the freedom loving USA. I directly experienced this when a group of 15 or so military troops – in full riot gear – marched aggressively and directly through a crowd at the Merton Center Rally. The crowd was attending a peaceful permitted rally before a march.

University of Pittsburgh student has ideas

Small groups of anarchists - do these kids look scary to you?

I talked to several people, all of whom described similar examples of where police and military units initiated violence, precipitated violence, or severely over reacted to minor threats associated with overwhelmingly non-violent protests. After I got home I viewed several YouTube videos of events that confirmed this overreaction – just do the Google and see for yourself. The tear gassing of University of Pittsburgh students looked particularly egregious.

This level of militarized intimidation is un-American and raises serious questions about constitutionally guaranteed rights of dissent and protest – free speech, association, and opportunity to petition government for redress of grievances. These are not mere words to me – I believe strongly in them. I watched videos where the protestors appealed to military units to respect their constitutional rights, only to have the troops ignore them while arbitrarily declaring peaceful protest illegal assembly. The scenes were redolent of a police state.

Protestors were not allowed anywhere near where the G 20 Summit was held, so President Obama and world leaders were totally isolated and could not hear their voices or see their signs.

Iraq Veterans Against the War join peaceful protestors

And – of course – the media focus on police over-reaction and scattered property damage by a handful of anarchists totally obscures any public discussion of the policy agenda before the G 20 and world leaders – important issues are being ignored – watch “G 20 Summit in Pittsburgh Highlights Economic Decline of Former Steel Capital“.

shotgun toting riot control police confronts college student

In this time of  economic collapse, accelerating global warming, and war, citizens engagement and protest needs to be valued and encouraged.

But when police state tactics intimidate protest and dissent and  media diversion squelches informed public discussion of critical issues, our Constitutional values are assaulted and necessary democratic pressure for reform is derailed.

As Frederick Douglass famously said: “Power concedes nothing without a fight – it never has and never will.”

military unit defends port-a-potties from peaceful protestors

canine unit troops and motorcycle cops intimidate peaceful protestors

Pitt students face off against armed troops

Military choppers monitor Pitt students - at least 3 copters continuously hovered over the city

Some police presence was respectful and appropriate - Pa. State Police (R) and City of Pittsburgh officer (L)

THIS is a REAL RIOT - Steeler Fans riot after Superbowl (Penguins Stanley Cup too)

That banned post illustrates the reasons that I blog and some of what I hope to accomplish. I try to combine serious ideas, visual images, and analysis to call out the bullshit I see in government, politics, and media every day.

I will focus primarily on environmental issues, not only because I love the natural world, but because the same forces that are destroying the environment also are responsible for our current accelerating economic and political collapse.  Hopefully, I will remain too controversial for the Star Ledger. And perhaps someday we all will recall that I.F. Stone famously said, “all governments lie“. Yet our media institutions have lost touch with that fundamental truth and not only fail to hold government accountable, but often accept government spin at face value, which then becomes the dominant narrative (conventional wisdom, or propaganda) .

But, lets not blame government per se. Scratch the surface of  most government lies and you find a cover for corporate power and economic interests. As political scientist Sheldon Wolin wrote in “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism” (excellent review here), our democratic institutions have been hijacked by corporate interests and our Republic transformed to a global empire. And there is little indication that the Obama “change”  is anything more than rhetoric. According to a Wolin interview in Chris Hedges’s new book “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” (Hedges interview here):

The basic systems are going to stay in place; they are too powerful to be challenged.” Wolin to me when I asked him about the Obama administration. ”This is shown by the financial bailout. It does not bother with the structure at all. I don’t think Obama can take on the kid of military establishment we have developed.  This is not to say that I do not admire him. …I think he is well meaning, but he inherits a system of constraints that make it very difficult to take on these major power configurations. I do not think he has the appetite for it in any ideological sense. The corporate structure is not going to be challenged. There has not been a word from him that would suggest an attempt to rethink the American imperium.” 

So, this is the frame of reference I will try to apply to the more circumscribed world of NJ environmental issues and politics. Let me know what you think – one of my aims is to spur dialogue.

Thrifty Individual Reducing Carbon FootPrint

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Bill Wolfe Vacationing close to home – camping in public parks

(warning – graphic images on the flip)

“The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009″
http://gawker.com/5285064/yahoo-nukes-mans-photos-over-obama-comments

DEP Headquarters, Trenton, NJ

NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY AT HEART OF BRIBERY SCANDAL — New Rules Needed to Ban “Pay-to-Play” and Protect Staff from Strong-Arm Tactics

 Washington, DC — Last week’s indictment of 44 people, including several New Jersey officials and two state legislators, underscores that “pay-to-play” is alive and well in the Garden State, especially within its Department of Environmental Protection , according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Today PEER proposed new rules to end the closed door dealings within DEP that fuel corrupt practices and put its professional staff in an untenable position.

To facilitate development projects, state legislators pressure DEP to improperly approve permits, sign-off on incomplete clean-ups and shelve enforcement actions. Typically, legislators deliver their messages to the DEP Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioners, who in turn direct staff. As one of the indicted lawmakers, state Rep. Daniel Van Pelt, who sits on the committee overseeing DEP, bragged to the FBI confidential informant, he knows the “right guys” who “work” the “channels”.

“The back channels into DEP need to be shut down,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “As long as DEP does its business behind closed doors, corruption will continue to blossom.”

Today PEER is proposing transparency rules for DEP that are virtually identical to ones which the agency rejected when PEER first proposed them in 2007. These rules would provide:

• Notice of Meetings. DEP convenes closed-door meetings with lobbyists, legislators and other insiders with no public attendance or publication of meeting agendas. The agency defends this secrecy as a matter of “executive privilege and the deliberative process privilege”;
• Publication of Top Officials’ Calendars. The DEP Commissioner and top deputies routinely make decisions on enforcement and other pollution control policies in meetings with legislators and corporate executives, often from the same companies charged with violations. DEP shields appointment calendars to protect “the privacy interests” of attendees; and
• Repeal Gag Orders Forbidding Staff from Talking to Media and Public. Under current DEP rules, agency scientists and other specialists are barred from speaking without prior approval from the agency Press Office. DEP says this is needed to enforce the chain-of-command.

“A big problem in New Jersey DEP is that the professional staff has little recourse when confronting management orders to less than faithfully execute the law,” Ruch added, noting that the state’s whistleblower law does not protect employee disclosures about threats to public health, manipulation of science, mismanagement or ethics violations. “Sunlight is the best hope for deterring sleazy deals.”

Political influence over DEP is now so deep that it is an accepted fact of life. For example, in a July 14, 2009 letter, DEP Acting Assistant Commissioner Scott Brubaker explained why he was setting aside water anti-pollution rules because legislators had introduce a bill to bully DEP to bend over for a favored project:

“The Department is also under pressure from the development community, which fears that the Department will unilaterally remove sewer service areas. Recently, legislation has been introduced that would extend the submission deadline…Together these added burdens would preclude the Department from adopting any new or updated wastewater management plan for the foreseeable future. Any Department effort to withdraw sewer service areas would encourage this legislation.”

“So long as DEP succumbs to political pressure, it invites that pressure,” Ruch concluded.

###

Examine the DEP role in latest bribery scandal

Read the PEER petition

View the DEP letter acknowledging political bullying

Look at DEP rebuff of transparency rules in 2007

See the full text of the federal criminal complaints

Bill Wolfe

Environmentalists rip DEP proposal as a 'gag order'
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
BY BRIAN T. MURRAY
Star-Ledger Staff
The state Department of Environmental Protection proposed restrictions yesterday on the public release of its scientific studies and reports, which environmental groups lambasted as a sweeping "gag order" spurred by a controversy over chromium pollution in Hudson County.
The commotion surrounds written guidelines from Jeanne Herb, the DEP's director of policy, planning and science, against employees disclosing technical and scientific reports -- even if they are the subject of an Open Public Records Act request -- until they are approved by upper management and the press office. The directive follows the April release of a report by DEP scientists concluding a new, stricter soil cleanup standard is needed for hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6, because the cancer-causing substance is riskier than previously believed.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1243915636194930.xml&coll=1
(more on the flip)

The Washington DC based watchdog group PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) blew the whistle on this DEP attempt to suppress and politically control science. In a press release, PEER disclosed the leaked DEP memo, written by Jeanne Herb who works in the DEP Commissioner's Office as Director of Policy, Planning and Science:
NEW JERSEY SLAPS GAG ORDER ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS -- Embarrassing Chromium Study Prompts Management Review of Scientific Findings
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1199
The DEP memo can be read here:
http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/09_01_06_njdep_gag_memo.pdf
I will be writing more on this and providing examples that can illustrate why this is so corrupt and how it allows polluters to benefit at the expense of public health.
But for now, I'd like to make a few points:
The DEP press flack defends the Order with the following deeply cynical pack of lies:
"This department is completely transparent. What is being discussed here are copies of draft reports that come out before they are finalized or even peer reviewed," said DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura. "What is wrong with suggesting that scientific reports, with the material they contain, be finalized before they are released? It's not to say that the information won't come out."
First of all, the Gag Order itself is not transparent because it is stamped "deliberative". This is done to exploit a loophole in the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) that exempts "deliberative" documents. The word "deliberative" has a legal meaning related to documents intended to support agency decisions. The Gag Order was not "deliberative" and it supported no decisions. Instead, it directed DEP staff to comply with specific requirements before scientific documents are released to the public. For the same reason, corrupt tobacco industry managers used to copy lawyers on scientific studies that proved that smoking caused cancer, to keep those studies secret under the "attorney client" privilege. The asbestos and chemical industry did this as well. Now a public agency, DEP, is engaging in these same transparently corrupt practices.
Second of all, the whole purpose of the Gag Order was to restrict public release of scientific information and allow DEP press office and political appointees to review, modify, and suppress science that did not fit the policy or political agenda of DEP or the Governor. Until and unless a DEP scientific document met their political, media and management approvals, it remained "draft" and was prohibited from release and exempt from OPRA. DEP managers could sit on a study virtually forever. The whole point of the Gag order was to reduce transparency and frustrate public right to know, which are the purposes of OPRA. To now claim that DEP is "completely transparent" is beyond Orwell, and a lie so large that it should be grounds for dismissal of any public servant.
Third, this has nothing to do with scientific peer review. The Gag Order established specific procedures for internal DEP political, press office, and management review. To claim that this is related to scientific peer review is another egregious lie.
Fourth, reminiscent of Pontius Pilate, Makatura cynically asks:
"What is wrong with suggesting that scientific reports, with the material they contain, be finalized before they are released?"
The answer is that there is PLENTY WRONG.
When a report is written by a research scientist, and then "finalized" by a group of DEP press officers, political appointees, and managers, it destroys scientific integrity. The Bush administration was pilloried for how they allowed political hacks to tone down the findings and revise scientific reports on global warming to fit the Bush political message and policy. The DEP Gag Order actually is worse than the Bush Adminstration's corrupt practices.
For specific examples of the michief allowed under the DEP Gag Order, consider this:
"* In September 2002, the [Bush] Administration removed a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual air pollution report. This report had contained a section on climate change for the past five years.
* The New York Times reported that the White House tried to force the EPA to substantially alter another report on climate change in 2003. Interviews with current and former EPA staff revealed that the Administration demanded a number of amendments including the insertion of a discredited study of temperature records which was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.”
For Full Report, see:
Scientific Integrity in Policy Making – Investigation of the Bush administration’s abuse of science
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/investigations_and_surveys/reports-scientific-integrity.html
More to follow on this story. Let’s hope this story has legs, and inquisitive journalists start asking DEP tough questions about specific studies that are impacted by the Gag Order. For startes, here are some examples from the Bush Administration:
http://www.rhtp.org/science/documents/Scientific_Integrity_at_Risk.pdf
* Full disclosure: I worked with Jeanne Herb while at DEP from 2002-2004 and with PEER as NJ PEER Director from 2005-2008.
[Note: can’t seem to post this comment reply to mcmid, so I will put it in the body of the post:
mcmid – I share you concern about how the NJ environmental groups endorse political candidates. They set the bar way too low and then withhold criticism of those they endorse. This allows politicians to enjoy a “green” image without earning it and sometimes allows then to be hostile to the environment without accountability.
But the blame for all of Corzine’s environmental failures can’t be lain at their feet. The business community and the legislature exert constant pressure on DEP to be more “business friendly” and to not enforce environmental laws.
Plus, DEP has been under miserable leadership and management for years, and had budgets persistently slashed.
I assume that Corzine is not aware of DEP’s Gag Order, so it is tough to blame him for it. The media should ask him if he supports it or will order its revocation and replacement with real transparency and public right to know, as mandated by OPRA.
In terms of who the enviro’s will back in November, that seems obvious because the Republican candidates are bashing DEP and have no environmental platforms.
Last, I am not affiliated with any environmental group, have not endorsed Corzine, and have written extensive criticism of his policies here. So, I don’t know who you are referring to when you say “you” have no one to blame but yourself. I assume you are not targeting me.
Wolfe

Mr. Lacey failed to provide readers with an understanding of the Constitutionally protected liberty and privacy interests at stake. He omitted the core of what the Court actually said and it’s supporting rationale. He also failed to note the context, e.g. that a conservative court wrote the opinion.
Below are excerpts of what the court actually said, with a link for readers to read it for themselves:
ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. RODNEY JOSEPH GANT
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf

The court found that police can not “rummage at will”:

“… the State seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, see New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 112- 113 (1986), the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection, see Knowles, 525 U. S., at 117. It is particularly significant that Belton searches authorize police officers to search not just the passenger compartment but every purse, briefcase, or other container within that space. A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment–the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.5″

The court found that police safety is not jeopardized and that police don’t even need these invasive powers:

“Contrary to the State’s suggestion, a broad reading of Belton is also unnecessary to protect law enforcement safety and evidentiary interests. Under our view, Belton and Thornton permit an officer to conduct a vehicle search when an arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Other established exceptions to the warrant requirement authorize a vehicle search under additional circumstances when safety or evidentiary concerns demand.”

The Scalia backed opinon (no bleeding heart liberal) concluded that police powers Mr. Lacey supports were “anathema” to 4th amendment privacy protections:

“Construing Belton broadly to allow vehicle searches incident to any arrest would serve no purpose except to provide a police entitlement, and it is anathema to the Fourth Amendment to permit a warrantless search on that basis. For these reasons, we are unpersuaded by the State’s arguments that a broad reading of Belton would meaningfully further law enforcement interests and justify a substantial intrusion on individuals’ privacy.8″

In an extraordinary new low for NJ’s declining commitment to protect the health of residents and the environment, this week, Governor Corzine signed legislation that privatized the NJ toxic site cleanup program. See:

Law allows private contractors to oversee pollution cleanups

The pioneering NJ toxic site cleanup law – commonly referred to as the “Spill Act” – was enacted in 1976. It became the model for the national 1980 “Superfund” law, which was sponsored by NJ Congressman Jim Florio, a then emerging environmental champion.

NJ Governor Jon Corzine backed and signed privatization law

Senator Bob Smith (D), Co-sponsor moved the bill through the Senate Committee he chaired.

Assemblyman John McKeon (D), lead Co-sponsor of privatization bill. As Chair of the Assembly Committee that heard the bill, McKeon worked hard to make this bill happen.

Hal Bozarth, lobbyist for NJ Chemistry Council stayed behind the scenes –

Yet, the Governor and NJ Legislature ended up delegating even more corrupt unaccountable power to the same private interests who had broken laws and poisoned communities and people across the state.

Let’s take a look at that ugly history and wonder in amazement how we got here.

Tony Russo – chemical industry lobbyist played the legislature like a fiddle.

In June 2005, the NJ Legislature held oversight hearings on the WR Grace site in Hamilton, NJ. That case is a textbook illustration of the need for strict DEP oversight and fatal flaws in a prior law that privatized portions of the cleanup process.

former NJ DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell

WR Grace had falsely certified that their site was clean. DEP had rubber stamped this certification without conducting sampling. The site was so polluted with carcinogenic asbestos, that the US EPA later was forced to conduct an emergency removal of over 15,000 tons of toxic soil. The Legislature called DEP Commissioner Campbell to account for that failure. As a result of this oversight, a state criminal investigation of WR Grace was launched (EPA had been involved in a national criminal investigation of WR Grace).

Jorge Berkowitz – private cleanup consultant who would economically benefits from the bill lobbied hard and played a large role.

[5/26/09 clarification: - The WR Grace fiasco preceded the tenure of DEP Commissioner Campbell. The original post mentioned Campbell in tracing legislative history. The post was not meant to imply that the WR Grace debacle was the fault of Campbell. To Campbell's credit in the WR Grace matter, his legislative testimony was relatively candid about DEP's prior failures and did identify some statutory and regulatory flaws, but in doing so, Campbell ducked and did not call for repeal of the real sources of the problem, which flowed from the privatization of oversight and decision-making in the 1993 ISRA law. While it is always easier after the fact to blame statutory deficiencies and identify the flaws of one's predecessor's (as opposed to aggressively enforcing existing authority to prevent problems), Campbell did recommend criminal penalties for providing false information to regulators. That and other reforms Campbell urged were not incorporated in the LSP bill.]

But the WR Grace debacle was no anomaly. It was quickly followed by other bombshells – in the same town. A “Ford PCB” scandal prompted Hamilton mayor Glen Gilmore to complain:
 

“We’re a community that’s been dumped on and lied to – my community has lost any confidence in what they’re told by experts or officials because of this. And I can’t blame them.”

Wow. Why would a Mayor be so scathingly critical of a fellow Democratic Administration? Because of this:

“Last month, town officials were told that crushed concrete used as a roadbed at a planned housing development was tainted with cancer-causing PCBs. The concrete came from the demolition of the old Ford assembly plant in Edison. Adding to the insult, the state [DEP] had known about the pollution since September but failed to notify locals for six months“

See: Bergen Record. “Cleaning up the Cleanup Process in New Jersey”.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/456127/cleaning_up_the_cleanup_process_in_new_jersey/

The Ford PCB scandal prompted another round of Legislative oversight hearings in June 2006. I met with District legislators and testified at those June 2006 hearings. As a former DEP staffer with experience in the cleanup program, my testimony laid out the real causes of the problem, and launched the environmental community’s legislative reform campaign agenda. See:
http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/06_1_6_peer_testimony.pdf

Literally at the same time that the June 2006 legislative oversight hearings and criminal investigations were ongoing, the controversial Trenton Martin Luther King Jr. school (toxic soil imported to school construction site) and Kiddie Kollege disasters were in progress.

Office of Legislative Services staffer and Senate democratic and republican staff wrote the bill.

In the infamous Kiddie Kollege case – in which a day care center was operating in a mercury-contaminated former thermometer factory – the DEP did not immediately warn the parents and workers about possible dangers for three months! The Kiddie Kollege site (Accutherm, Inc.) was under a 1995 cleanup order issued by DEP but never enforced.
But in an August 3, 2006 DEP press release (issued jointly with the NJ Attorney General), Lisa Jackson covered up a massive DEP failure by falsely claiming that DEP shut the daycare center down “as soon as DEP discovered” it. Jackson lied:

NJ DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson

“As soon as the DEP discovered that the formerly abandoned site was housing a day care center, inspectors moved in, took samples and shut it down…A day care center should be a safe haven — not a room full of toxic mercury.”  (Lisa Jackson, NJDEP Commissioner)

See:  AG Farber Announces Investigation
of Contamination at South Jersey Day Care Site;
“Kiddie Kollege” Closed Down After Testing Revealed Excessive Mercury Levels
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases06/pr20060803b.html

But, as the New York Times disclosed, before issuing that press release, Jackson knew the chronology. She knew that DEP had failed to enforce the DEP’s own 1995 Clean-up Order and she knew that DEP had “discovered” the problem at the day-care center during the first week of April 2006. She also knew that Instead of acting immediately upon discovery of the problem, DEP quietly negotiated a voluntary cleanup agreement with the owner and waited more than 14 weeks before they sampled the indoor air and notified parents on July 28, 2006. According to the New York Times story of 9/1/06:

See: Memo Shows Agency Knew of Danger in Child Care Building
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/nyregion/01mercury.html?scp=5&sq=Kiddie%20Kollege&st=cse

This kind of bad press forced DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson to respond. But she was never held accountable.

In October 23, 2006 testimony to NJ Legislature conducting oversight hearings of DEP toxic site cleanup program, Jackson admitted that DEP lacked any priorities to guide the cleanup program. This exposed the long-standing lie repeated over and over again by DEP that they addressed the “worst sites first”:

NJ DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson was Corzine’s loyal Lieutenant and championed the privatization bill, but later reversed course during her EPA confirmation hearings before the US Senate.

“The DEP is taking steps internally to help prevent residents of the State of New Jersey from exposure to contamination from regulated sites. The most important thing we are doing is developing a new ranking system to prioritize sites so that we focus our resources on the worst cases; those that present the greatest risks to public health and the environment.“

See Jackson’s testimony: http://www.nj.gov/dep/commissioner/102306_srp.pdf

The Jackson commitment to develop priorities was never met.

As a result, the lack of a priority list allowed DEP to make an excuse that 20,000 cases and not enough staff were the problem. This lie backfired, as industry lobbyists used it to argue that privatization was the solution to DEP staff shortfalls.

But Lisa Jackson later went even further in pointing out glaring flaws at DEP. In a rare moment of truth, Jackson admitted that the DEP cleanup program was “broken”. Jackson identified the source of the problem as private sector self reporting and a lack of enforcement that undermined DEP’s ability to protect the public. Jackson stated in a September 24, 2007 DEP Press Release:

“We realize that the state’s system that allows self-reporting for monitoring of these contaminated properties is broken, and we are taking the first steps toward fixing this,” Commissioner Jackson said. “Still, this situation seriously undermines the department’s ability to ensure protection of public health and the environment. We are committed to using every enforcement tool available to bring these responsible parties into compliance as promptly as possible.” http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2007/07_0041.htm

But something happened between September 2007 and April 2008, because Jackson reversed course.

Now, instead of a lack of DEP priorities, industry self reporting, and lax enforcement of cleanup requirements as the causes of the problem, Jackson joined the polluters and now championed PRIVATIZATION.

DEP Commissioner Jackson whispers in Governor Jon Corzine’s ear

On April 3, 2008, Lisa Jackson said:

“The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will privatize pollution control and deregulate toxic cleanups, according to statements by the agency’s top official.

In a breakfast roundtable with a real estate group on April 3, 2008, DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson said, “… I feel outsourcing the consultant program to the private sector will ease the workload and lower the wait time for all those involved in site remediation.“

 See: New Jersey Seeks to Outsource Pollution Cleanups
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-15-094.asp 

But – after she left NJ to become head of US EPA – Jackson reversed course AGAIN.

During January 2009 US Senate Confirmation hearings for US EPA Administrator, Jackson was asked point blank whether she would bring to EPA the privatization program she supported in NJ.

US EPA Administrator nominee Lisa Jackson testifies at confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Jackson repudiated privatization – here’s an excerpt of testimony regarding NJ’s privatized “Licensed Site Professional” (LSP) toxic site program:

Question by Committee Chair Senator Barbara Boxer:

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

A: Lisa Jackson:

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

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

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

A: Lisa Jackson: “NO”

Watch CSPAN video of Jackson testimony here:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=Congress-A-14317

It is not hard to recognize that the sources of the problems in DEP site remediation program stem from TOO MUCH private sector influence. DEP does ZERO enforcement of cleanup requirements and industrial polluters are allowed to simply stonewall DEP case managers and run out the clock. Other polluters that want a quick and dirty cleanup approval expedited by DEP exert top down political pressure on DEP staffers to rubber stamp grossly deficient cleanup plans in order to allow land transactions and development to proceed at low cost. By law, the selection of the cleanup plan is controlled exclusively by the polluter, an absurd situation that allows cost minimization and economic factors to drive what should be a public health and environmental protection program.

This – plus GROSS MISMANAGEMENT at DEP – is what explains the huge case backlog and extensive delays in cleanup. A US EPA Inspector General’s Report validates that assessment. According to the EPA IG Report:

“Claims about New Jersey’s overwhelming workload were brought to our attention during the evaluation. At that time, we requested documentation from NJDEP to support this workload challenge. We specified that we would need evidence that spanned the 20 year period since these sites were listed on the NPL. NJDEP did not provide this information.”(@ page 11)

Read the EPA IG Report here:
Improved Controls Would Reduce Superfund Backlogs
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/20080602-08-P-0169.pdf

Irene Kropp, DEP Assistant Commissioner for Site Remediation testifies to the Senate Environment Committee to support privatization and dodge accountability for massive failures.

PRIVATIZATION will only make those problems worse, not better, as the environmental cop is taken off the beat.

After the LSP bill passed the Legislature and was on the Governor’s desk, there were additional highly embarrassing disclosures. Internal DEP documents and emails showed suppression and coverup of a DEP risk assessment on toxic chromium, and the health risks in Jersey City and the Hudson County “chrome coast”. What did Lisa Jackson know and when did she know it? She put people’s lives on the line to appease NJ business community and advance her own career. How sick is that?

See: HIGH CHROMIUM DANGER KNOWN BY NEW JERSEY LEADERS SINCE 2007 — Lisa Jackson and DEP Brass Decided to Proceed As If New Data Did Not Exist
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1191

CHROMIUM FAR DEADLIER THAN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS INDICATE — Scores of Capped New Jersey Contaminated Sites Will Have to Be Re-Evaluated
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1184

In a last ditch effort to bring some sanity to the table, I outlined this entire history here: “Dumped on and Lied To”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/09/dumped_on_and_lied_to.html

NJ DEP Headquarters, Trenton, NJ

For a full chronlogy and extensive documentation of the DEP toxic site program collapse, including internal DEP documents, reports and EPA IG Report, see the links here:
http://www.peer.org/state/state_info.php?sid=nj

Update: 5/11/09 – I think it is important to include the below dialogue, which is occurring on a national brownfield list-serve (starts with my reply):
Chris – in response:

1. NJ went the “Brownfield” route way back. It started with 1983 legislative amendments know as “ISRA”, where pave and wave (engineering and institutional controls) originated and cleanup standards were allowed to be based on land use (industrial versus residential). Prior to ISRA, the law allowed DEP to block real estate property transactions and impose permanent (removal/excavation) remedies. This was all too costly and slow for NJ business you see. Enviro’s naively signed off onthis rollback in exchange for a 1 in a million cancer risk standard as the basis for cleanup standards. Dumb move! You see, exposure controls (caps) can eliminate risk, at least on paper! No exposure, no risk, right?
But the “brownfields” program really began in earnest as a small bore program in 1993 under Democratic Governor Jim Florio. It was called “the developers track”. The policy was to prioritize and expedite the approval of cleanup plans where there was a viable RP, a real cleanup plan, and a real private investment in a viable land development project. The cleanups were to proceed under enforceable Administrative Consent Orders (ACO’s), which included mandatory timetables, stipulated penalties for non-compliance, and financial assurance. Less than 100 cases were participating in this program.

In 1994, Republican Christine Todd Whitman was elected Governor. She pursued a “NJ is Open for business” policy, with market based “regulatory reform” and “voluntary compliance”. Under that policy, the “developers track” program was greatly expanded and gutted: 1) the ACO mechanism was rescinded and replaced by voluntary “Memoranda of Agreement” (MOA’s); 2) Financial assurance was refunded; 3) The pace of “cleanup” was determined by the RP’s economic needs; and 4) Several thousand cases opted into this program, which essentially provided an enforcement shield for stalled cleanups.
The Whitman policy was enacted into law in the 1997 “Brownfields Act”.

2. Yes, the NJ law includes a “Covenant not to sue” (CNS), “No Further Action” (NFS) letters, “change in standards” and innocent purchaser liability protection – all done to provide “certainty” and “finality” to the RP’s and investment community.

With the exception of some great work in 2002 by former DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell to recover “Natural Resource Damages” (NRD), it’s been all downhill for NJ cleanup programs since Whitman.
Bill Wolfe
—– Original Message —–
From: crborello@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:03:07 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Fwd: Privatization of NJ Toxic Cleanup Law Reveals a Systematic Collapse
So New Jersey is following what Ohio did years ago, allowing polluters to take over/ guard the chicken coop…..Political pressure and corporate polluters win big again, and it appears both Dems and Republicans alike seem to think the Brownfields/Voluntary Action is the best thing since sliced bread.. ( Someone recently called this stuff going on “economic blackmail.”)…. This is why many of us have been so concerned about the Brownfields/Voluntary Action all along – calling it “corporatization” rather than privatization. As always, the devil’s in the details. What the article doesn’t mention is whether there are covenants not to sue, audit secrecy clauses that we were told are in our Ohio bill, making things even worse. What about the health care costs when people get sick from these polluted sites being reused? Sadly, it seems to many, that as long as the polluters get off the hook, and these contaminated sites can be “redeveloped” to make politicians look good that so that they can claim that they helped bring jobs into the state, health concerns are of no consequence. We all know from our nightmare experiences with ATSDR, illnesses can be oh so easily downplayed and swept under the rug when they occur, no sweat. Question: Can someone please now tell me why there are still some reported environmental activists working on the side of promoting Brownfields/Voluntary Action programs? I don’t get them at all. How do they justify this? Could they possibly be that naive?
Chris

Bill WolfeAtlantic States Pipe foundry, Phillipsburg, NJ

“Addressing Judge Cooper, McWane’s president, G. Ruffner Page, expressed regret for the McWane employees who had been injured or killed, and for the communities whose air and water were fouled by the company.
“This experience has been extremely painful for this company, and for me personally,” he said. “All of us are deeply sorry.”[...]
“Mr. Page told Judge Cooper that the publicity and prosecutions prompted intense soul-searching among McWane’s senior executives. He said the company redoubled its efforts to improve its record, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on improvements, hiring dozens of new safety and environmental managers and, in time, replacing more than 90 percent of the company’s top management.
Iron Pipe Maker Is Fined $8 Million for Violations
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/nyregion/25pipe.html?_r=1
The local rag was even more sympathetic in its coverage, as was the sentencing judge, who apparently left his hanging robes at home:
“Suspended Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co. supervisor Craig Davidson drew a relatively short six-month federal prison sentence Thursday, after the judge described him as an extraordinarily giving man.
Davidson, 44, of Lower Nazareth Township, faced a prison term ranging from 30 to 37 months under federal sentencing guidelines.
U.S. District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper opted for a fraction of that. She based her decision on Davidson’s lifelong history of helping others, his acquittals on numerous counts brought by the government, a lack of “quality evidence” against Davidson and his lack of a criminal history.
“He is a devoted family man” said the judge, also describing Davidson as someone who loved and respected the environment.[...]
Davidson addressed the court from a podium before his sentencing and repeatedly broke down in tears. About 100 supporters showed up in the fifth-floor courtroom of the federal courthouse. Court attendants brought in folding chairs to accommodate the overflow crowd.

Former Atlantic States finishing department superintendent draws six-month prison sentence
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1240546044172550.xml&coll=3
So, let’s take a look at the operations of these corporate executives who the newspapers and judge feels “love and respect the environment” – comments in the captions:

Bill WolfeMcWane facility belches toxic pollution into the air of Phillipsburg, NJ

Bill WolfeThe McWane foundry is right on top of a residential neighborhood it pollutes

Bill Wolfe

Bill WolfeBooms on the Delaware River try to trap some of the illegal toxic water pollution discharges from the foundry

Bill WolfeToxic chemicals are shipped to and from the foundry, and stored on site

Bill Wolfe“Family liquor stores”, bars, and toxic air pollution assault local residents

Bill WolfeThe company abuses its workers and benefits from high unemployment and desperation

Bill WolfeDupont Pompton Lakes facility entrance

At the invitation of local official Ed Meakem, I jumped into the Pompton Lakes fight last July, and warned residents and local officials that Dupont and DEP were working privately together and could not be trusted to protect their health or environment:
“On a Night Like This”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/07/on_a_night_like_this.html
Since then, residents have organized and fought back. Wednesday night, Erin Brockovich echoed my advice to residents:
“just looking to government isn’t enough: “Agencies are absent. They are understaffed, underfunded, and often all they can do is rely on data given to them by the defendant [polluter.]”
Don’t be quiet. The community has to be united. And you have to say ‘I’m not going to take your [expletive] any more.’ They’re not going to like it. But it will take all of us to use our voices.”
Read the full story here:
Erin Brockovich takes on Pompton Lakes cause
Thursday, April 23, 2009
BY ELAINE D’AURIZIO
http://www.northjersey.com/environment/Erin_Brockovich_takes_on_Pompton_Lakes_cause.html

Bill Wolfe

Video for those that like to watch:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
Transcript for those that like to read:
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.
For months now, revelations of the wholesale greed and blatant transgressions of Wall Street have reminded us that “The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One.” In fact, the man you’re about to meet wrote a book with just that title. It was based upon his experience as a tough regulator during one of the darkest chapters in our financial history: the savings and loan scandal in the late 1980s.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: These numbers as large as they are, vastly understate the problem of fraud.
BILL MOYERS: Bill Black was in New York this week for a conference at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice where scholars and journalists gathered to ask the question, “How do they get away with it?” Well, no one has asked that question more often than Bill Black.

The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L’s in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating — after whom the senate’s so-called “Keating Five” were named — he sent a memo that read, in part, “get Black — kill him dead.” Metaphorically, of course. Of course.
Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname “banksters.”
Bill Black, welcome to the Journal.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Thank you.
BILL MOYERS: I was taken with your candor at the conference here in New York to hear you say that this crisis we’re going through, this economic and financial meltdown is driven by fraud. What’s your definition of fraud?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, “I create trust in you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of value.” And as a result, there’s no more effective acid against trust than fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that’s what we have.
BILL MOYERS: In your book, you make it clear that calculated dishonesty by people in charge is at the heart of most large corporate failures and scandals, including, of course, the S&L, but is that true? Is that what you’re saying here, that it was in the boardrooms and the CEO offices where this fraud began?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.
BILL MOYERS: How did they do it? What do you mean?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, the way that you do it is to make really bad loans, because they pay better. Then you grow extremely rapidly, in other words, you’re a Ponzi-like scheme. And the third thing you do is we call it leverage. That just means borrowing a lot of money, and the combination creates a situation where you have guaranteed record profits in the early years. That makes you rich, through the bonuses that modern executive compensation has produced. It also makes it inevitable that there’s going to be a disaster down the road.
BILL MOYERS: So you’re suggesting, saying that CEOs of some of these banks and mortgage firms in order to increase their own personal income, deliberately set out to make bad loans?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: How do they get away with it? I mean, what about their own checks and balances in the company? What about their accounting divisions?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: All of those checks and balances report to the CEO, so if the CEO goes bad, all of the checks and balances are easily overcome. And the art form is not simply to defeat those internal controls, but to suborn them, to turn them into your greatest allies. And the bonus programs are exactly how you do that.
BILL MOYERS: If I wanted to go looking for the parties to this, with a good bird dog, where would you send me?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, that’s exactly what hasn’t happened. We haven’t looked, all right? The Bush Administration essentially got rid of regulation, so if nobody was looking, you were able to do this with impunity and that’s exactly what happened. Where would you look? You’d look at the specialty lenders. The lenders that did almost all of their work in the sub-prime and what’s called Alt-A, liars’ loans.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Liars’ loans–
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Liars’ loans.
BILL MOYERS: Why did they call them liars’ loans?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they were liars’ loans.
BILL MOYERS: And they knew it?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: They knew it. They knew that they were frauds.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Liars’ loans mean that we don’t check. You tell us what your income is. You tell us what your job is. You tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you. We won’t check on any of those things. And by the way, you get a better deal if you inflate your income and your job history and your assets.
BILL MOYERS: You think they really said that to borrowers?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: We know that they said that to borrowers. In fact, they were also called, in the trade, ninja loans.
BILL MOYERS: Ninja?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yeah, because no income verification, no job verification, no asset verification.
BILL MOYERS: You’re talking about significant American companies.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Huge! One company produced as many losses as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.
BILL MOYERS: Which company?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: IndyMac specialized in making liars’ loans. In 2006 alone, it sold $80 billion dollars of liars’ loans to other companies. $80 billion.
BILL MOYERS: And was this happening exclusively in this sub-prime mortgage business?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: No, and that’s a big part of the story as well. Even prime loans began to have non-verification. Even Ronald Reagan, you know, said, “Trust, but verify.” They just gutted the verification process. We know that will produce enormous fraud, under economic theory, criminology theory, and two thousand years of life experience.
BILL MOYERS: Is it possible that these complex instruments were deliberately created so swindlers could exploit them?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, absolutely. This stuff, the exotic stuff that you’re talking about was created out of things like liars’ loans, that were known to be extraordinarily bad. And now it was getting triple-A ratings. Now a triple-A rating is supposed to mean there is zero credit risk. So you take something that not only has significant, it has crushing risk. That’s why it’s toxic. And you create this fiction that it has zero risk. That itself, of course, is a fraudulent exercise. And again, there was nobody looking, during the Bush years. So finally, only a year ago, we started to have a Congressional investigation of some of these rating agencies, and it’s scandalous what came out. What we know now is that the rating agencies never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I’m quoting Fitch, the smallest of the rating agencies, “the results were disconcerting, in that there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined.”
BILL MOYERS: So if your assumption is correct, your evidence is sound, the bank, the lending company, created a fraud. And the ratings agency that is supposed to test the value of these assets knowingly entered into the fraud. Both parties are committing fraud by intention.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right, and the investment banker that — we call it pooling — puts together these bad mortgages, these liars’ loans, and creates the toxic waste of these derivatives. All of them do that. And then they sell it to the world and the world just thinks because it has a triple-A rating it must actually be safe. Well, instead, there are 60 and 80 percent losses on these things, because of course they, in reality, are toxic waste.
BILL MOYERS: You’re describing what Bernie Madoff did to a limited number of people. But you’re saying it’s systemic, a systemic Ponzi scheme.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, Bernie was a piker. He doesn’t even get into the front ranks of a Ponzi scheme…
BILL MOYERS: But you’re saying our system became a Ponzi scheme.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Our system…
BILL MOYERS: Our financial system…
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Became a Ponzi scheme. Everybody was buying a pig in the poke. But they were buying a pig in the poke with a pretty pink ribbon, and the pink ribbon said, “Triple-A.”
BILL MOYERS: Is there a law against liars’ loans?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not directly, but there, of course, many laws against fraud, and liars’ loans are fraudulent.
BILL MOYERS: Because…
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they’re not going to be repaid and because they had false representations. They involve deceit, which is the essence of fraud.
BILL MOYERS: Why is it so hard to prosecute? Why hasn’t anyone been brought to justice over this?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they didn’t even begin to investigate the major lenders until the market had actually collapsed, which is completely contrary to what we did successfully in the Savings and Loan crisis, right? Even while the institutions were reporting they were the most profitable savings and loan in America, we knew they were frauds. And we were moving to close them down. Here, the Justice Department, even though it very appropriately warned, in 2004, that there was an epidemic…
BILL MOYERS: Who did?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: The FBI publicly warned, in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, that if it was allowed to continue it would produce a crisis at least as large as the Savings and Loan debacle. And that they were going to make sure that they didn’t let that happen. So what goes wrong? After 9/11, the attacks, the Justice Department transfers 500 white-collar specialists in the FBI to national terrorism. Well, we can all understand that. But then, the Bush administration refused to replace the missing 500 agents. So even today, again, as you say, this crisis is 1000 times worse, perhaps, certainly 100 times worse, than the Savings and Loan crisis. There are one-fifth as many FBI agents as worked the Savings and Loan crisis.
BILL MOYERS: You talk about the Bush administration. Of course, there’s that famous photograph of some of the regulators in 2003, who come to a press conference with a chainsaw suggesting that they’re going to slash, cut business loose from regulation, right?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, they succeeded. And in that picture, by the way, the other — three of the other guys with pruning shears are the…
BILL MOYERS: That’s right.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: They’re the trade representatives. They’re the lobbyists for the bankers. And everybody’s grinning. The government’s working together with the industry to destroy regulation. Well, we now know what happens when you destroy regulation. You get the biggest financial calamity of anybody under the age of 80.
BILL MOYERS: But I can point you to statements by Larry Summers, who was then Bill Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, or the other Clinton Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin. I can point you to suspects in both parties, right?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: There were two really big things, under the Clinton administration. One, they got rid of the law that came out of the real-world disasters of the Great Depression. We learned a lot of things in the Great Depression. And one is we had to separate what’s called commercial banking from investment banking. That’s the Glass-Steagall law. But we thought we were much smarter, supposedly. So we got rid of that law, and that was bipartisan. And the other thing is we passed a law, because there was a very good regulator, Brooksley Born, that everybody should know about and probably doesn’t. She tried to do the right thing to regulate one of these exotic derivatives that you’re talking about. We call them C.D.F.S. And Summers, Rubin, and Phil Gramm came together to say not only will we block this particular regulation. We will pass a law that says you can’t regulate. And it’s this type of derivative that is most involved in the AIG scandal. AIG all by itself, cost the same as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.
BILL MOYERS: What did AIG contribute? What did they do wrong?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: They made bad loans. Their type of loan was to sell a guarantee, right? And they charged a lot of fees up front. So, they booked a lot of income. Paid enormous bonuses. The bonuses we’re thinking about now, they’re much smaller than these bonuses that were also the product of accounting fraud. And they got very, very rich. But, of course, then they had guaranteed this toxic waste. These liars’ loans. Well, we’ve just gone through why those toxic waste, those liars’ loans, are going to have enormous losses. And so, you have to pay the guarantee on those enormous losses. And you go bankrupt. Except that you don’t in the modern world, because you’ve come to the United States, and the taxpayers play the fool. Under Secretary Geithner and under Secretary Paulson before him… we took $5 billion dollars, for example, in U.S. taxpayer money. And sent it to a huge Swiss Bank called UBS. At the same time that that bank was defrauding the taxpayers of America. And we were bringing a criminal case against them. We eventually get them to pay a $780 million fine, but wait, we gave them $5 billion. So, the taxpayers of America paid the fine of a Swiss Bank. And why are we bailing out somebody who that is defrauding us?
BILL MOYERS: And why…
WILLIAM K. BLACK: How mad is this?
BILL MOYERS: What is your explanation for why the bankers who created this mess are still calling the shots?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, that, especially after what’s just happened at G.M., that’s… it’s scandalous.
BILL MOYERS: Why are they firing the president of G.M. and not firing the head of all these banks that are involved?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: There are two reasons. One, they’re much closer to the bankers. These are people from the banking industry. And they have a lot more sympathy. In fact, they’re outright hostile to autoworkers, as you can see. They want to bash all of their contracts. But when they get to banking, they say, ‘contracts, sacred.’ But the other element of your question is we don’t want to change the bankers, because if we do, if we put honest people in, who didn’t cause the problem, their first job would be to find the scope of the problem. And that would destroy the cover up.
BILL MOYERS: The cover up?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Sure. The cover up.
BILL MOYERS: That’s a serious charge.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Of course.
BILL MOYERS: Who’s covering up?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Geithner is charging, is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it’s going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they’re allowing all the banks to report that they’re not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can’t be true. It can’t be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they’re fine.
These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed, not because…
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation’s top regulators, during the entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave no warning. He did nothing in response to the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud. All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his phrase about legacy assets. Well he’s a failed legacy regulator.
BILL MOYERS: But he denies that he was a regulator. Let me show you some of his testimony before Congress. Take a look at this.
TIMOTHY GEITHNER:I’ve never been a regulator, for better or worse. And I think you’re right to say that we have to be very skeptical that regulation can solve all of these problems. We have parts of our system that are overwhelmed by regulation.
Overwhelmed by regulation! It wasn’t the absence of regulation that was the problem, it was despite the presence of regulation you’ve got huge risks that build up.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, he may be right that he never regulated, but his job was to regulate. That was his mission statement.
BILL MOYERS: As?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: As president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is responsible for regulating most of the largest bank holding companies in America. And he’s completely wrong that we had too much regulation in some of these areas. I mean, he gives no details, obviously. But that’s just plain wrong.
BILL MOYERS: How is this happening? I mean why is it happening?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Until you get the facts, it’s harder to blow all this up. And, of course, the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts.
BILL MOYERS: What facts?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: The facts about how bad the condition of the banks is. So, as long as I keep the old CEO who caused the problems, is he going to go vigorously around finding the problems? Finding the frauds?
BILL MOYERS: You–
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Taking away people’s bonuses?
BILL MOYERS: To hear you say this is unusual because you supported Barack Obama, during the campaign. But you’re seeming disillusioned now.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they’re refusing to obey the law.
BILL MOYERS: In other words, they could have closed these banks without nationalizing them?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, you do a receivership. No one — Ronald Reagan did receiverships. Nobody called it nationalization.
BILL MOYERS: And that’s a law?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: That’s the law.
BILL MOYERS: So, Paulson could have done this? Geithner could do this?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not could. Was mandated–
BILL MOYERS: By the law.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: By the law.
BILL MOYERS: This law, you’re talking about.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: What the reason they give for not doing it?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: They ignore it. And nobody calls them on it.
BILL MOYERS: Well, where’s Congress? Where’s the press? Where–
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, where’s the Pecora investigation?
BILL MOYERS: The what?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: The Pecora investigation. The Great Depression, we said, “Hey, we have to learn the facts. What caused this disaster, so that we can take steps, like pass the Glass-Steagall law, that will prevent future disasters?” Where’s our investigation?
What would happen if after a plane crashes, we said, “Oh, we don’t want to look in the past. We want to be forward looking. Many people might have been, you know, we don’t want to pass blame. No. We have a nonpartisan, skilled inquiry. We spend lots of money on, get really bright people. And we find out, to the best of our ability, what caused every single major plane crash in America. And because of that, aviation has an extraordinarily good safety record. We ought to follow the same policies in the financial sphere. We have to find out what caused the disasters, or we will keep reliving them. And here, we’ve got a double tragedy. It isn’t just that we are failing to learn from the mistakes of the past. We’re failing to learn from the successes of the past.
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: In the Savings and Loan debacle, we developed excellent ways for dealing with the frauds, and for dealing with the failed institutions. And for 15 years after the Savings and Loan crisis, didn’t matter which party was in power, the U.S. Treasury Secretary would fly over to Tokyo and tell the Japanese, “You ought to do things the way we did in the Savings and Loan crisis, because it worked really well. Instead you’re covering up the bank losses, because you know, you say you need confidence. And so, we have to lie to the people to create confidence. And it doesn’t work. You will cause your recession to continue and continue.” And the Japanese call it the lost decade. That was the result. So, now we get in trouble, and what do we do? We adopt the Japanese approach of lying about the assets. And you know what? It’s working just as well as it did in Japan.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.
BILL MOYERS: You are.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely, because they are scared to death. All right? They’re scared to death of a collapse. They’re afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we’ll run screaming to the exits. And we won’t rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it’s foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, “We just can’t let the big banks fail.” That’s wrong.
BILL MOYERS: But what might happen, at this point, if in fact they keep from us the true health of the banks?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, then the banks will, as they did in Japan, either stay enormously weak, or Treasury will be forced to increasingly absurd giveaways of taxpayer money. We’ve seen how horrific AIG — and remember, they kept secrets from everyone.
BILL MOYERS: A.I.G. did?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: What we’re doing with — no, Treasury and both administrations. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration kept secret from us what was being done with AIG. AIG was being used secretly to bail out favored banks like UBS and like Goldman Sachs. Secretary Paulson’s firm, that he had come from being CEO. It got the largest amount of money. $12.9 billion. And they didn’t want us to know that. And it was only Congressional pressure, and not Congressional pressure, by the way, on Geithner, but Congressional pressure on AIG.
Where Congress said, “We will not give you a single penny more unless we know who received the money.” And, you know, when he was Treasury Secretary, Paulson created a recommendation group to tell Treasury what they ought to do with AIG. And he put Goldman Sachs on it.
BILL MOYERS: Even though Goldman Sachs had a big vested stake.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive stake. And even though he had just been CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. Now, in most stages in American history, that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn’t be allowed in civilized society.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, like a conflict of interest, it seems.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive conflict of interests.
BILL MOYERS: So, how did he get away with it?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: I don’t know whether we’ve lost our capability of outrage. Or whether the cover up has been so successful that people just don’t have the facts to react to it.
BILL MOYERS: Who’s going to get the facts?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: We need some chairmen or chairwomen–
BILL MOYERS: In Congress.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: –in Congress, to hold the necessary hearings. And we can blast this out. But if you leave the failed CEOs in place, it isn’t just that they’re terrible business people, though they are. It isn’t just that they lack integrity, though they do. Because they were engaged in these frauds. But they’re not going to disclose the truth about the assets.
BILL MOYERS: And we have to know that, in order to know what?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: To know everything. To know who committed the frauds. Whose bonuses we should recover. How much the assets are worth. How much they should be sold for. Is the bank insolvent, such that we should resolve it in this way? It’s the predicate, right? You need to know the facts to make intelligent decisions. And they’re deliberately leaving in place the people that caused the problem, because they don’t want the facts. And this is not new. The Reagan Administration’s central priority, at all times, during the Savings and Loan crisis, was covering up the losses.
BILL MOYERS: So, you’re saying that people in power, political power, and financial power, act in concert when their own behinds are in the ringer, right?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: That’s right. And it’s particularly a crisis that brings this out, because then the class of the banker says, “You’ve got to keep the information away from the public or everything will collapse. If they understand how bad it is, they’ll run for the exits.”
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, and this week in New York, at this conference, you described this as more than a financial crisis. You called it a moral crisis.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because it is a fundamental lack of integrity. But also because, if you look back at crises, an economist who is also a presidential appointee, as a regulator in the Savings and Loan industry, right here in New York, Larry White, wrote a book about the Savings and Loan crisis. And he said, you know, one of the most interesting questions is why so few people engaged in fraud? Because objectively, you could have gotten away with it. But only about ten percent of the CEOs, engaged in fraud. So, 90 percent of them were restrained by ethics and integrity. So, far more than law or by F.B.I. agents, it’s our integrity that often prevents the greatest abuses. And what we had in this crisis, instead of the Savings and Loan, is the most elite institutions in America engaging or facilitating fraud.
BILL MOYERS: This wound that you say has been inflicted on American life. The loss of worker’s income. And security and pensions and future happened, because of the misconduct of a relatively few, very well-heeled people, in very well-decorated corporate suites, right?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right.
BILL MOYERS: It was relatively a handful of people.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don’t prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it’s what saves capitalism. “Honest purveyors prosper” is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn’t need to happen at all.
BILL MOYERS: When you wake in the middle of the night, thinking about your work, what do you make of that? What do you tell yourself?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: There’s a saying that we took great comfort in. It’s actually by the Dutch, who were fighting this impossible war for independence against what was then the most powerful nation in the world, Spain. And their motto was, “It is not necessary to hope in order to persevere.”
Now, going forward, get rid of the people that have caused the problems. That’s a pretty straightforward thing, as well. Why would we keep CEOs and CFOs and other senior officers, that caused the problems? That’s facially nuts. That’s our current system.
So stop that current system. We’re hiding the losses, instead of trying to find out the real losses. Stop that, because you need good information to make good decisions, right? Follow what works instead of what’s failed. Start appointing people who have records of success, instead of records of failure. That would be another nice place to start. There are lots of things we can do. Even today, as late as it is. Even though they’ve had a terrible start to the administration. They could change, and they could change within weeks. And by the way, the folks who are the better regulators, they paid their taxes. So, you can get them through the vetting process a lot quicker.
BILL MOYERS: William Black, thank you very much for being with me on the Journal.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Thank you so much.

Bill WolfeUS EPA selected Paulsboro High School for monitoring potential impacts of toxic air pollutants.
I targeted this school in a January 8, 2008 NJ Voices post

On March 31, 2009 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they will monitor air quality outside (but curiously, not inside where kids are exposed) two NJ schools. The monitoring is part of a new national effort.
The new EPA initiative was prompted by media expose and local activists, not government regulators, who shamefully were asleep at the switch.
Realization of the EPA program resulted from the leadership of California Senator Barbara Boxer, who, as Chair of the Senate Environment Committee, secured a commitment from Lisa Jackson during Jackson’s confirmation hearings for EPA Administrator (we wrote about that and reiterated the Paulsboro HS case in a January 25, 2009: Politics versus science
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2009/01/politics_versus_science.html

Last year, on January 8, 2008, I wrote this piece, which focused on pollution risks to kids at Paulsboro High School (and featured the above picture):
In Harm’s way
Posted by Bill Wolfe January 18, 2008 11:17PM
Would you send your child to this school?
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/01/what_they_dont_want_you_to_see.html
In light of the new EPA program, the core of that post bears repeating now:
“The NJ DEP does not require chemical plants that emit tons of cancer causing hazardous air pollutants to monitor actual ambient concentrations at the fence line of the plant. This data is required to understand the health impacts of those emissions on surrounding homes, schools and people. DEP does not require health risk assessment before granting air pollution permits that allow industries to release these toxic chemicals to our air. Current DEP air permit rules make risk assessment and air modeling voluntary – of course no chemical company has volunteered to study the health impacts of its pollution on the surrounding neighborhood kids. Impacted communities are kept in the dark and DEP is flying blind – no data, no health effects monitoring, and no science.”.
“THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS- …. NJ is the most densely populated place on earth where schools and residential neighborhoods are virtually right on top of chemical plants and refineries.”
This episode proves the wisdom of environmental writer and activist Edward Abbey, who said:
“sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul”
All too often, the sentiment of environmental advocates is not matched by action.
In this case, for taking the above picture of Paulsboro High School in the shadow of the Valero refinery, I was brought to the local jail, illegally searched, detained, and questioned by police. After being cleared by local police, days later I was harassed at my home by three federal, state and county Homeland Security investigators. In my own investigation of the local police and Homeland Security investigators, I discovered that an FBI Report was filed on this episode.
I was highly critical of Lisa Jackson on this and many other issues – and for that, I was attacked by media and certain friends of Lisa Jackson in the NJ environmental community.
Sentiment with action can bite you in the as.. .
But I guess I’m vindicated now by EPA’s announcement, which said:
“As part of a new air toxics monitoring initiative, EPA, state and local air pollution control agencies will monitor the outdoor air around schools for pollutants known as toxic air pollutants, or air toxics. The Clean Air Act includes a list of 187 of these pollutants. Air toxics are of potential concern because exposure to high levels of these pollutants over many decades could result in long-term health effects.
EPA selected schools after evaluating a number of factors including results from an EPA computer modeling analysis, the mix of pollution sources near the schools, results from an analysis conducted for a recent newspaper series on air toxics at schools, and information from state and local air pollution agencies.
Link to full EPA fact sheet, program description, and the list of schools targeted, see:
http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/

“Trust us, We’re Experts” is the title of a 2001 book that exposed chemical industry propaganda campaigns to promote absurd ideas – hilarious notions like toxic heavy metal laden sewage sludge is good fertilizer. So, I recalled that book while reading Matt Taibbi’s devastating recent Rolling Stone piece on the financial meltdown:
” “We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate,but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It is beyond comprehension.”
[...]
The most galling thing about this financial crisis is that so many Wall Street types think they actually deserve not only their huge bonuses and lavish lifestyles but the awesome political power their own mistakes have left them in possession of. When challenged, they talk about how hard they work, the 90-hour weeks, the stress, the failed marriages, the hemorrhoids and gallstones they all get before they hit 40.

B

“But wait a minute,” you say to them. “No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what’s left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?”

But before you even finish saying that, they’re rolling their eyes, because You Don’t Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they’re on par with crack addicts, or obsessive sexual deviants who burgle homes to steal panties. Yet these are the people in whose hands our entire political future now rests.
Read the rest of this outstanding piece:
The Big Takeover
The global economic crisis isn’t about money – it’s about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution
MATT TAIBBI
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print

B

Atlantic Highlands, NJ – Bill Wolfe talks about medical waste beach washups and the need to increase resources for enforcement of environmental laws, including the Medical Waste Management Act.

Last summer, in the wake of disgusting medical waste washups on the shore – I wrote this post:
Making the environment a priority – where is the leadership?
Posted by Bill Wolfe August 26, 2008 7:17AM
More signs of erosion of environmental protection
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/08/making_the_environment_a_prior.html
“As the summer winds down and we head into the Labor Day weekend, the recent closure of Delaware Bay shellfisheries, proliferation of jellyfish, and wash-up of medical waste that closed Cape May beaches highlight the critical importance of protecting our environment (see:
Avalon’s beaches shut again over waste
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/186/story/237553.html
State hunts dumpers of medical waste off Avalon

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1219725396143840.xml&coll=1

Bill Wolfe

Few seem to recall that in the wake of a series of revolting medical waste washups along the shore, in the spring of 1989 Governor Tom Kean signed the Medical Waste Management Act. That law put in place a comprehensive program at DEP to oversee proper disposal of medical waste (see: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/hwr/medinfo.htm
Since then, DEP budgets have been slashed, and as a direct result, monitoring and enforcement have been eroded.

Bill Wolfe

Bad things – like medical waste on the beach – tend to happen when DEP budgets are cut and monitoring and enforcement are scaled back. This is no different than when the State Trooper and his radar gun are not there: people tend to speed.
Back in the 1990’s former Governor Whitman was slashing DEP budgets and rolling back regulations and enforcement. Whitman cuts to the Shellfish Sanitation Program – which assures the safety of our seafood – caused the federal government to threaten to ban NJ’s ability to ship shellfish in interstate markets. Prompted by mobilized public concern – a group of NJ Senate Republicans stood up and literally drew a line in the sand (see extraordinary letter below).”
[End August 26, 2008 post]
At the time, there was exactly one person talking to the press about the NJ Medical Waste Management Act and the relationship between cuts in DEP resources, enforcement, and medical waste washups. Some were mis-focused on the voluntary EPA “floatables” plan.
Well it looks like someone was listening to some of my recommendations, but not others (like adequate resources to DEP to make enforcement a credible deterrent, because the bill is unfunded – see:

Bill Wolfe

NJ bill would increase medical waste fines
March 16, 2009
TRENTON, N.J. – The state Assembly has approved a bill that would double the fines for a host of medical waste violations. 

Some penalties would jump to $100,000 per day under the measure passed Monday, and penalties for intentionally dumping any material into the ocean would stiffen.


The Senate Environment Committee also approved the measure on Monday. 

Last summer, several beaches along the Jersey Shore were closed temporarily after syringes, gauze and other debris washed ashore.










































The bill needs approval from the full Senate before Gov. Jon S. Corzine can sign it into law.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj-xgr–medicalwaste0316mar16,0,1810999.story
The bill still needs to pass the Senate – So, let’s hope the NJ Senate – led by the shore delegation – can rise to the occasion, and pass the bill with some money to fund enforcement programs to protect the Shore, just like they did in May of 1996 in response to Whitman Administration DEP budget cuts (see below letter):
NEW JERSEY SENATE

Trenton, NJ, May 16, 1996.

The HONORABLE CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN,
Governor,

State of New Jersey

State House CN-001

Trenton, NJ 08625-0001
DEAR GOVERNOR WHITMAN:
Among all the responsibilities of government, there are few of greater importance, or of more concern to the public than the protection of New Jersey’s environment and the quality of public health. We know that protecting these important concerns, and carrying out these responsibilities through appropriate State actions and support is a priority you share with the Legislature and the general public. It is in recognition of that shared commitment to protecting New Jersey’s environment and public health that we write to you today.

We are greatly concerned that your proposed budget for fiscal year 1997 does not adequately provide the necessary resources to State government to meet the environmental challenges facing the State. This is especially true in the proposed funding for the Department of Environmental Protection.
The proposed budget would require dramatic reductions in scientific, technical and human resources critical to the mission of the Department. In a State facing the environmental issues New Jersey does, we need to respond aggressively to the challenges of insuring that our air is safe to breath, the water safe to drink or the empty lot next door safe to play in. It is highly questionable as to whether the Department will maintain the requisite expertise and resources under the fiscal year 1997 budget proposal to answer these questions and respond in a way protective of public health and the environment.
We are also concerned that the proposed reduction in resources will not fulfill the new approaches to environmental protection. The successful implementation of the initiatives under discussion will require additional resources above and beyond those currently available to the DEP. Many of the ”reengineering” initiatives being undertaken by the Department will be fundamentally handicapped by the proposed reductions in resources contained in the current budget proposal.
Due to these concerns we feel that it is important that you be aware we may not be able to support this budget proposal, should it come before the Senate in its current form The historical erosion of staffing at the Department experienced over past important that you be aware we may not be able to support this budget proposal, should it come before the Senate in its current form The historical erosion of staffing at the Department experienced over past budget cycles cannot be continued because the environmental goals we have outlined above will not be attainable.
We feel strongly that the proposed layoffs of DEP personnel will negatively impact the Department’s ability to effectively safeguard the environment and protect public health. Therefore, we cannot support a final DEP budget which contains employee
layoffs.

We are, of course, committed to working with you to restore the resources we feel are necessary to carry out the critical functions of the Department of Environmental Protection We feel that it is very possible to identity appropriate resources, sources of funding and approaches to achieve this, and we ask for the opportunity to explore these with you and your staff.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN O. BENNETT,
Senate Majority Leader.
ANDREW R. CIESIA,
Senator.
JOSEPH M. KYRILLOS,
Senator.
HENRY P. MCNAMARA,
Senator.
JOSEPH A. PALAIA,
President Pro Tempore.
JACK G. SINAGRA,
Senator.
ROBERT W. SINGER,
Senator.
Link this letter @ page 123-124)
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/107s/69822.pdf

Bill Wolfe