Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

EPA has enforcement action online, DEP has some info but not as much

Written by Mike Pisauro on May 25th, 2010 in Federal | No Comments »

I came across a very interesting tool yesterday for about the tenth time.  I learned about this tool several years ago and then forgot about it.  Every now and then I am reminded about it.  The tool is a map from EPA that shows many of its enforcement actions in a given area.  These are actions brought against a facility that has violated a permit.  You can zoom in to a specific area and select whether you would like to see enforcement actions for air, water, land, criminal, cross media or federal facilities.  A screenshot of all the enforcement actions in the NJ area is below.

NJ enforcement sites

EPA Enforcement Actions in NJ

Once you have isolated an area you can click on one of the flags to learn move about the facility.

EPA Enforcement site

Site specifics of enforcement action

While NJ does not have a similar system to locate enforcement actions, you can located licensed facilities.  DEP has the i-MAPNJ web program.

List of licensed sites in NJ

DEP's licensed sites list

Sometimes information is very useful.  Hopefully DEP will update the information available to the public.

EPA finds DEP's site remediation program lacking again.

Written by Mike Pisauro on September 8th, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Recently, the U.S. EPA released an audit report critical of NJ’s Department of Environmental Protection.  This audit report is on the heels of another negative audit report of the DEP’s handling of the remediation of contaminated sites.  The most recent audit looked to at whether DEP’s Quality System was in compliance with EPA’s required Quality control systems, whether DEP was implementing their Quality System and whether DEP was insuring that the data from their monitoring projects were adequate.  Instead of rehashing the entire report, I want to focus on the EPA’s finding regarding the Site Remediation Program.

None of the Site Remediation Program’s bureaus interviewed do any project assessment and/or process improvement beyond data validation, (i.e. no field audits, no split samples, no internal assessment, etc.)  The EPA assessment team was told that Responsible Party contractors and/or NJDEP contractors are “certified professionals and taken at their word.

It is kinda scary to think that DEP has a culture that allows for a complete disregard for the statutory and regulatory requirements.  We have seen over the last several years the impacts of DEP not confirming the information they have received from outside contractors.  I.e. W.R. Grace, Edison Ford plant, etc.

This audit report should be viewed in light of the recently enacted Licensed Site Professionals Law.  The LSP law deputizes outside contractors to decide how contaminated a site is, how best to clean the site and to determine the site is now clean and to issue the equlivant of No Further Action letters.   Once the LSP program is up and running will DEP continue to be so trusting?

When the LSP bill was racing through the legislature Environmental Organizations, including the NJEL, strenuously argued that DEP need to engage in aggressive oversight.  DEP fought enviros on this as well as enviros’ request that DEP maintain control over the worst sites.    The end result is that DEP cannot audit LSPs or even require the LSP board to audit an LSP.  DEP can merely recommend that an LSP receive an audit.  In fact the DEP’s ability to review or audit a site is mostly limited to document reviews and “shall review the performance of a remediation.”  §21b.  Another section of the law provides that DEP and LSP board can “investigat[e], sampl[e], inspect[], or copy[] any records, condition, equipment, practice, or property”  Even if DEP has the authority, will they overcome their culture of trusting the “professionals” and will they independently verify the information they receive from the professionals to ensure that sites are remediated and the environment and our health are protected.

EPA reconsidering its earlier denial of Ca. waiver

Written by Mike Pisauro on March 6th, 2009 in Clean Air, Federal, Global Warming | No Comments »

I read a very good blog post from the NRDC regarding the EPA’s reconsideration of California’s request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act so that California can implement stricter greenhouse gas emission regulations for automobiles.  The post is here. Once the waiver is granted, New Jersey’s regulations which adopt the California regulations will be effective.  These clean car regulations is part of New Jersey’s plan to address global warming gases under its Global Warming Response Act.

Administrator Jackson was the Commissioner of DEP at the time that DEP adopted the Ca. regulations and she was very involved in the passage of the Global Warming Response Act.  I believe that bodes well for her decision to grant the waiver.

Lisa Jackson's confirmation hearing today

Written by Mike Pisauro on January 14th, 2009 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will be taking testimony on Lisa Jackson’s appointment as EPA commissioner.  Lisa wsa the former Commissioner of NJ DEP.  The hearing will begin at 10a.m.  I believe you can listen to the hearings as they occurr by clinking on this link.

Has Jackson even unpacked yet?

Written by Mike Pisauro on December 11th, 2008 in Politics | No Comments »

Lisa Jackson is likely the shortest staying chief of staff in NJ history. Ms. Jackson left the post of DEP commissioner. She was supposed to have started December 1st as Corzine’s chief of staff. President-elect Obama has named Lisa as the EPA administrator.

DEP Commissioner to Chief of Staff to EPA Administrator?

Written by Mike Pisauro on November 14th, 2008 in Politics | No Comments »

Commissioner Jackson could potentially be the shortest serving chief of staff in NJ history.  Effective Dec. 1st, she will no longer be DEP commissioner but will be Governor John Corzine’s chief of staff.    She was also named by President-elect Obama’s team to be part of his transition teams for Energy and Natural Resources, i.e. searching of a new EPA administrator.  She is also being considered to the position of EPA Administrator along with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Carol Browner, Kathleen McGinity and others.  Also, there is still no word on who the new commissioner of DEP will be.

Talk about Drugs and Water

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 16th, 2008 in Clean Water | No Comments »

Within the last week or so the issue of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water has gather some more attention. On Tuesday, April 15th, the United States Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works held a hearing on the topic. David Pringle of New Jersey’s Environmental Federation testified before the committee. Somethings to note from that hearing are: that there are over 140 chemicals found in our drinking water including gasoline additivies, pesticides, and other chemicals. Some of these chemicals EPA believes to be cancer causing. Other chemicals we have no idea what the effects of the chemicals are.

EPA is over six years behind schedule in listing endocrine disrupting chemicals that it will test for. It has not established the testing protocols for some of those chemicals and it is not ready to require that these chemicals be monitored by the companies that provide our water. In response to a request from a committee member the EPA provided some information. Part of what they provided is very disturbing:

“while there is much information about the health effects of pharmaceutical products at the therapeutic doses provided in medication, there is still uncertainty about their potential effects on public health and aquatic life from long-term exposure to the low levels observed in water. In the absence of fully understanding the risks associated with low levels, it is difficult to move forward to require monitoring and/or treatment that carry significant cost . . .”

What a failure of government to do its basic job of protecting public health and safety. In the face of uncertainty the best course of action is to be proactive not wait until someone proves that these chemicals are doing harm. This is the basic tenant of the precautionary principle. Must we wait until its is proven without a shred of doubt that these chemicals singularly or in combination are causing an impact before we as a society decide to do something?

Hopefully the U.S. Congress will start to put the pressure of EPA to do its job. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has at least started to address the problem. DEP has issued a bulletin outling how to dispose of unused medication. The issue of drugs in our water also came up in yesterday’s NJ Senate Environment and Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Joint Committee meeting concerning site remediation. (Of which I will write about shortly.)

Combatting Global Warming moves forward then back in 2007.

Written by Mike Pisauro on January 7th, 2008 in Global Warming | No Comments »

The fight against Global Warming had some ups and downs last year.  In April, the United States Supreme Court moved the game forward in its decision regarding Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), only to have the ball brought back in December by the EPA’s failure to authorize California’s regulation of GHG emissions.

 

In Massachusetts v. EPA, several states, including NJ, sued the EPA over its refusal to regulate Green House Gases (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles.  In refusing the petition from private groups, EPA argued that it did not have the authority to regulate GHGs as they were not a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act and, furthermore, the EPA asserted that there were other avenues that were more appropriate to address global warming. 

 

The Supreme Court, however, asserted that GHGs are, in fact, air pollutants and, as such, rejected the EPA’s assertion that it did not have authority to regulate the GHGs being emitted from motor vehicles.  The Court noted that the Clean Air Act (CAA) defined air pollutant to be, “any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.”  The Court noted that since GHGs were chemical/physical substances that are emitted into the ambient air they are, therefore, pollutants.  The Court then directed the EPA to determine whether GHG emissions endanger public health or welfare.

 

Despite this hopeful start, in December the EPA declined California the right to implement more stringent regulations regarding GHG emissions from motor vehicles (see link).  Under the CAA, California has the right to enact more stringent regulations effecting emissions from motor vehicles and, once California receives permission to enact more stringent regulations, other states can adopt the California regulations.  New Jersey is one of the states that have promulgated regulations adopting the California regs. The EPA, however, justified their denial of the waiver by claiming that, unlike many other pollutants, GHGs is a “global issue” and not a local issue.  Additionally, the EPA found that, since Congress recently passed an increase in fuel efficiency requirements for motor vehicles, there was no longer any need to permit the waiver to California.  California and other states, including New Jersey, are currently suing EPA’s denial of the waiver (see link).

 

Hopefully, 2008 will be a better year for the U.S. efforts to combat Global warming.