Search Results for: Universal Oil

Remediation coming to a close for a part of Universal Oil Products Superfund Site in East Rutherford, NJ

From the USEPA

NEW YORK (July 22, 2022) –Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes that no further cleanup action is needed to address groundwater at the Universal Oil Products Superfund site in East Rutherford, NJ.

Sampling data indicates that there are no expected impacts on the surface water from the site. To further ensure long-term protection, EPA proposes amending the original cleanup action, requiring notices to be filed with property records and incorporating other measures to safeguard the cleanup.

“Today’s proposed action ensures that long-term controls are in place to inform and safeguard public health both now and long into the future,” said Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia. ” EPA believes that earlier cleanup actions for the land portion of the site, which includes soil and groundwater, are protective, and we are moving forward with other portions of the cleanup.”

Other Superfund news:
EPA plans to clean up contaminated groundwater in Olean Well Field Superfund Site in Cattaraugus County, New York
EPA is spending $5.5M to clean up Bucks and Montgomery County Superfund sites
What is Superfund?

Today’s proposed cleanup comes after work has already been done under a 1993 cleanup plan selected by EPA in close consultation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Under that plan, contaminated soil was dug up and treated, the area was capped, and long-term monitoring was required.

Notice requirement for property owners

The addition proposed by EPA today requires that property owners planning new construction on the land portion of the site evaluate conditions to ensure pollutants in indoor air will not exceed levels protective of human health for building occupants. In addition, property owners may be required to install certain engineering controls such as a vapor barrier or a sub-slab-depressurization system, which uses a fan-powered vent to draw air from beneath the foundation slab, redirecting potentially harmful vapor from entering the building.

The Universal Oil Products Superfund site is a 75-acre area located in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Site operations starting in the 1930s included chemical manufacturing and solvent recovery, later expanding in the mid-1950s to include a wastewater treatment plant and storage lagoons. Seepage from the wastewater lagoons and the routine handling of products and wastes resulted in the release of hazardous substances to the upland soil, groundwater, tidal marshes, and waterways.

EPA placed the site on the Superfund National Priorities List in 1983 and divided the site into two distinct areas called operable units (OUs). Today’s proposed plan is for the first operable unit, which addresses the upland soil and shallow groundwater.

EPA selected a cleanup plan for OU2 in 2019, which addresses a former lagoon area, low-lying marshes, and the waterway channels of Ackermans Creek and its tributaries. The design for that cleanup is currently underway.

Public meeting July 27 on cleanup plan for Operating Unit 2

The proposed plan’s 30-day public comment period will occur from July 22, 2022, to August 22, 2022. In addition, EPA will host a Virtual Public Meeting on July 27, 2022, at 6:30 p.m.

To register for the public meeting, visit universaloilproducts.eventbrite.com. To learn more about the public meeting, contact Shereen Kandil at Kandil.Shereen@epa.gov or (212) 637-4333

Written comments on EPA’s proposed plan may be mailed or emailed to Jennifer LaPoma, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway – 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Email: LaPoma.Jennifer@epa.gov.

Visit the Universal Oil Products Superfund site profile page for additional background and to view the proposed plan.

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Remediation coming to a close for a part of Universal Oil Products Superfund Site in East Rutherford, NJ Read More »

A nasty old Meadowlands site may be coming off the Superfund list and open for new uses

Ted Goldberg reports for NJ Spotlight News

One of New Jersey’s oldest Superfund sites is a big step closer to being deemed cleaned up. The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing an end to work to clean polluted groundwater at the Universal Oil Products site in East Rutherford, where toxic chemicals contaminated the soil and sediment dating back to 1930.

Related environmental news story:
Remediation coming to a close for a part of the Universal Oil Products Superfund Site

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

A nasty old Meadowlands site may be coming off the Superfund list and open for new uses Read More »

EPA proposes $18.2M cleanup of toxic Meadowlands site

The Universal Oil Products Superfund site in 2010 on Route 17 in East Rutherford, NJ. (Photo: File photo)

Scott Fallon reports for the North Jersey Record:

Another major toxic site in the Meadowlands is slated to be cleaned up under a proposed $18.2 million plan, unveiled this week by federal officials, for a former East Rutherford factory.

The proposal for Universal Oil Products comes just two months after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chose a $332 million plan to dredge mercury-laden sediment from nearby Berry’s Creek.

The plan targets Ackerman’s Creek, which is tainted with lead, PCBs and other contaminants from Universal Oil Products.

Workers would remove the top 2 feet of sediment laced with lead, PCBs and other contaminants from the waterway on the west side of Murray Hill Parkway. That would total 16,300 cubic yards — enough to fill almost 1,200 average-sized dump trucks.

Like this? Click to receive free updates


The excavated areas would then be filled with clean sand and gravel.

EPA officials are supporting the $18.2 million plan over a $21.6 million plan that would excavate the first 3 feet of soil from the property for a total of 19,600 cubic yards.

Honeywell acquired the property in 2002 and would likely be among the parties to pay for the cleanup.

Officials said removing all of the contaminated sediment would not reduce the risk substantially more than a proposal to scoop up the first 2 feet and cap the remaining contaminants. Many environmental groups have criticized this practice, derisively calling it “pave and wave” and saying only complete excavation can ensure that there is no threat to public health.

As with most of New Jersey’s worst toxic sites, the pollution at Universal Oil Products dates back decades to when ink was manufactured at the site, off Route 17 near Paterson Plank Road.

The factory handled chemical waste for decades, and pollution would routinely seep from on-site wastewater lagoons into soil, groundwater, marshlands, and creeks.


EPA proposes $18.2M cleanup of toxic Meadowlands site Read More »

Scientists: Exposing animals to diluted samples of fracking water causes lasting harm

Pump jacks at the Belridge Oil Field and hydraulic fracking site in Kern County, California. Credit: Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Pump jacks at the Belridge Oil Field and hydraulic fracking site in Kern County, California. Credit: Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

By Liza Gross, Inside Climate News February 21, 2023

Extracting fossil fuels from underground reservoirs requires so much water a Chevron scientist once referred to its operations in California’s Kern River Oilfield “as a water company that skims oil.”

Fracking operations use roughly 1.5 million to 16 million gallons per well to release oil and gas from shale, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. All that water returns to the surface as wastewater called flowback and produced water, or FPW, contaminated by a complex jumble of hazardous substances in fluids injected to enhance production, salts, metals and other harmful elements once sequestered deep underground, along with their toxic breakdown products. 

Concerns that spills could damage sensitive ecosystems skyrocketed with the rapid expansion of fracking across the United States and Canada almost two decades ago, as technological advances allowed energy companies to exploit previously inaccessible shale oil and gas reserves. 

Those concerns are well founded new research shows. Exposing animals that play a critical role in freshwater food webs to diluted samples of flowback and produced water from fracked wells causes lasting harm, scientists reported earlier this month in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology. 

Read the full story here

If you like this post you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Scientists: Exposing animals to diluted samples of fracking water causes lasting harm Read More »

Composting has spiked since food scraps were banned from Vt landfills

Chickens feed on food scraps blended with other ingredients at the Vermont Compost farm in Montpelier. Courtesy photo.


By Ashley DeLeon, VT Digger

It’s been just over a year since food scraps were banned from Vermont landfills, prompting a statewide composting spike. 

The Universal Recycling Law (Act 148) was passed unanimously by the Vermont Legislature in 2012, then updated in 2018, 2019, and 2020. The law aimed to “reduce landfill waste, increase recycling, increase composting, and try to meet the state’s 50% recycling goal,” said Josh Kelly, materials management section manager of the Department of Environmental Conservation. 

The recycling law really tightened up in 2020 when Rep. James Harrison, R-Chittenden, introduced the proposal to ban the disposal of food waste in landfills, and Gov. Phil Scott signed it on July 1 of last year. 

Don’t miss environmental news like this Click for updates

The new law led to a surge in the number of residential and commercial compost services in Vermont.

“I was out of work last spring. I was reading about that law, and so I started this business based on what I thought would be a residential need,” said Zach Cavacas, owner and operator of Music Mountain Compost, based in Stockbridge. The company offers bi-weekly residential and commercial compost pickup and Cavacas says it has diverted over 40 tons of food waste over the past year.

In its first year, Music Mountain Compost has grown from zero to more than 300 customers. 

“The growth rate is incredible, and I’ve also been to over 70 towns. There’s a huge need for this,” Cavacas said.

“If you compost food scraps that Vermont landfills each year, it would be the same as taking over 9,000 cars off the road,” Kelly said.

The Department of Environmental Conservation estimates that the number of food scrap haulers has more than tripled, from 12 haulers in 2012, to 45 in 2021. 

Vermont’s sales of supplies for backyard composters (compost bins, kitchen countertop collectors, food scrap buckets, etc.) rose from $7,132 to $19,681 in the past year, said Susan Alexander, manager of the Lamoille Regional Solid Waste District. In 2020 alone, the district took in 146 tons of food scraps for composting; that rose to 166 tons in the past six months.

The waste district established Lamoille Soil in Johnson as a composting operation, and business is booming.

“Since the Universal Recycling Law has gone into effect, it’s gone up. We’re really excited to see people being able to find a way to bring their food scraps to our six dropoff facilities,” Alexander said. 

Click to read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Composting has spiked since food scraps were banned from Vt landfills Read More »

How a new regulation in California could jump-start solar panel recycling nationwide

California’s upcoming classification of photovoltaic panels as universal waste is expected to allow for greater efficiencies in handling a material stream that is projected to grow substantially

The image by RecondOil is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Matthew Bandyk reports for Waste Dive

A long-awaited change to California’s regulations on the handling of solar panel waste is expected to take effect later this year, with implications that could shape the developing U.S. solar panel recycling industry.

A long-awaited change to California’s regulations on the handling of solar panel waste is expected to take effect later this year, with implications that could shape the developing U.S. solar panel recycling industry.In the long run, this move could create a regulatory model that other states can follow, a critical development as the amount of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels that will need to be handled greatly increases in coming decades.

California – which in 2018 produced about two-fifths of all electricity generated by PV solar, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) – attempted to change this regulation seven years ago. But the state’s Office of Administrative Law found the proposed classification was not consistent with federal law, driving the DTSC to seek approval from the U.S. EPA. At the beginning of 2020, the EPA authorized the DTSC’s proposed changes to its hazardous waste program, making it federally enforceable.

“This is the last step in the approval process for regulations to be adopted,” a DTSC spokesperson told Waste Dive. “The PV module universal waste regulation will become effective – earliest expected date of Oct. 1, 2020, –  when the regulation package is approved by [the Office of Administrative Law].”

The EPA describes universal waste as subject to a “streamlined” set of standards compared to other types of hazardous waste. The new classification affects how long solar panel waste can be held on site before it is required to be transferred to another facility and reduces requirements for testing for certain hazardous materials.

Like this? Click to receive free EP Blog updates

For example, under the current classification in California, a generator of solar panel waste must move it off-site in under 90 days after generation. But under the universal waste classification, the waste can stay on-site for up to a year, allowing it to be transported to recycling facilities in bulk.

“Some of the advantages of managing PV waste as universal wastes are: reduction of the generator regulatory requirements, accumulation of waste for up to one year, no need for a hazardous manifest, and reduction of the amount of labeling and recordkeeping,” according to a study by researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).

This new approach comes as the demand for ways to efficiently and economically recycle solar panels is set to jump due to the quickly increasing prominence of solar power in global electricity generation.

Because the boom in solar power is relatively new, the solar panel recycling industry can be considered to be in its “infancy,” according to Andreas Wade, global sustainability director for First Solar, a major solar module manufacturer that also operates several solar panel recycling facilities around the world. “We don’t have that much end-of-life [PV solar] on a global scale because of the long life” of panels, Wade said in an interview with Waste Dive. Panels produced today can last around 30 years.

From 2010 to 2019, net summer solar PV power capacity in the U.S. alone grew from 393 MW to 35,571 MW, according to the EIA. While solar panels currently make up just a small amount of e-scrap, the need for solar panel disposal will rise dramatically over the next few decades as projects being built today reach the end of their useful lives.

“The industry is working with several vendors to establish responsible, comprehensive end-of-life management programs that account for the volume anticipated over the next few decades,” Evelyn Butler, senior director of codes and standards for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in an email to Waste Dive. “For those modules that are recycled, nearly 100% of the materials used in PV modules are recyclable or reusable.”

About 50 million metric tons of e-scrap are produced annually around the world, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. Amidst the mountains of computer parts, smartphones and various other devices, solar panels may add up to only about 250,000 tons, according to a 2016 scenario projection from a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

But based on projections from the UCSB study, looking at the U.S. alone, PV solar waste may rise to 1.3 million metric tons in 2040 and 5.5 million metric tons in 2050. Globally, it could total 80 million metric tons by 2050, according to a recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory report.

In the U.S., solar waste is currently governed by a “patchwork” of state and local regulations that can make recycling “difficult” for solar asset owners, Wade said. For example, solar project owners frequently have to buy a surety bond to guarantee decommissioning costs will be covered, but exactly what disposal measures are required by the bond may differ at the state or even county level. “There is a need to develop a common approach and harmonized methodology for decommissioning cost bonds,” he said.

As the first state to act, California’s regulatory move could be a step toward tying together that patchwork. “Other states may use the California rule as a roadmap for their own regulations,” attorneys from the law firm Baker Botts wrote in a 2019 blog post about the universal waste classification. 

In addition, the U.S. EPA looks to the states to see “how their programs have worked in practice and whether their definitions and regulations should be adopted or refined at the federal level,” Baker Botts attorney Martha Thomsen said in an interview with Waste Dive. For example, in 2019, the agency finalized a rule designating aerosol cans as universal waste after several states, including California, took that step. In a statement, the EPA said this final rule “offers a more uniform, nationwide handling system.”

Overall, Europe’s public and private system for handling solar panel waste is “three to four years ahead of the curve” compared to that of the U.S., Wade said. But, he added, “that is beginning to change” due to a number of initiatives

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

How a new regulation in California could jump-start solar panel recycling nationwide Read More »

Debate’s attempt to show candidates divided on climate finds unity instead

The Democrats may butt heads on climate policy details, but they all see growing risks to security, economy and health that the next president can’t ignore.

By Marianne Lavelle for Inside Climate News

Round two of the second Democratic primary debate, held in Detroit. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
The second 2020 Democratic primary debate, held in Detroit, was conducted in two rounds over two nights with 10 candidates each. Climate change and environmental issues got about 21 minutes of attention. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

In two nights of debates that seemed designed to highlight divisions among the candidates, the Democratic presidential hopefuls this week managed to display remarkable unity in their proclaimed commitment to aggressive action on climate change.

Barbed questions posed by a CNN panel produced sharp wrangling over the details of universal health care, immigration and crime. But when it came to decarbonizing the economy, few hard and fast differences surfaced.

“We have all put out highly similar visions on climate,” said Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Sign up for InsideClimate News Weekly

Our stories. Your inbox. Every weekend.I agree to InsideClimate News’ Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Former Vice President Joe Biden sought to fend off the charge that his plan was “middling.” Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio envisioned a manufacturing future centered around the electric car. Sen. Kamala Harris of California called for adopting a Green New Deal and getting the country to carbon neutral by 2030.

Yes, some of the moderates don’t like the Green New Deal. And the left-leaning politicians were more vociferous in their denunciation of the fossil fuel industry, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont accusing the corporations of “criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue,” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts vowing to take on a Washington that “works great for the oil companies, just not for the people worried about climate change.”

But those differences belie the candidates’ fundamental agreement that transformative policy is needed to address climate change, including that:

  • emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil energy have to be brought to zero no later than 2050;
  • an expansive and rapid economic transformation with special attention to the needs of workers is key; and
  • trillions of dollars of federal investment will be necessary and worth the money given the scientific evidence that the alternative would be far costlier.

“I think it’s pretty clear from everyone on that stage that you can’t be serious about running for president if you are not committed to acting on the climate crisis,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, vice president for government relations for the League of Conservation Voters, who watched the sessions live from the Fox Theatre audience in Detroit.

The first night of the two-night second debate of the Democratic presidential primary season. Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, right, was the only new candidate on the stage who didn’t also participate in the first set of debates. The debates were held over two nights to accommodate most of the large Democratic primary field. Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Read the full story

Debate’s attempt to show candidates divided on climate finds unity instead Read More »

Fracking industry rattled by major Pa. Superior Court ruling

Fracking Industry
warns of ‘devastating effects’ 

Matthew G. Lawson

Jenner and Block attorney Matthew G. Lawson reports in Lexology



On April 2, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a potentially groundbreaking decision by holding that trespass and conversion claims arising from hydraulic fracturing are not precluded by the rule of capture. In reaching this conclusion, the court found that the Southwestern Energy Production Company (“Southwestern”) may have committed trespass when it extracted natural gas located under neighboring properties by draining the gas through fissures created from hydrofracturing fluid. 
Such a holding was almost universally thought to be precluded by the rule of capture. The rule of capture, which can be traced back to 18th century fox hunting, has historically been applied to find that oil and gas companies cannot be held liable for “capturing” oil and gas that drain naturally from neighboring land as a result of legal extraction activities. In differentiating hydraulic fracking from traditional oil and gas extraction, the court focused on the fact that hydraulic fracking actually pumps fluid across property lines to open up non-natural fissures that allow the natural gas to seep back across the property to be extracted.
The potential impact of the Pennsylvania court’s decision has spurred high levels of concern from the greater fracking industry. On the same day that Southwestern filed an appeal requesting an en banc rehearing of the decision, seven separate industry trade groups filed leave with the court seeking permission to file amicus briefs urging the court to grant Southwestern the rehearing. One of these groups, the Marcellus Shale Coalition (“MSC”), is a collection of approximately 200 producers, midstream, and local supply-chain companies that produce more than 95% of the natural gas in Pennsylvania. 
The group has asserted that the April 2nd ruling interrupts well-established law and creates an “unprecedented form of tort liability” that threatens the entire industry. In a similar filing, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry stressed that the decisions could have devastating effects on the industry and the economy of Pennsylvania. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the hydraulic fracking industry currently provides an estimated 322,600 jobs to Pennsylvania and contributes nearly $44.5 million in revenue to the state’s economy.
In Southwestern’s own appeal, the company echoed many of the concerns proclaimed by the industry. The company stressed that the decision would “unleash a torrent of speculative lawsuits” that could threaten the economic livelihood of the industry throughout the state. The company also characterized the April 2nd ruling as an impractical precedent for future decisions. Southwestern noted that the opinion would require courts and juries to speculate whether hydrofracturing fluid located miles below the surface ever moved onto neighboring property, which is a task the company portrayed as “a fool’s errand.”
The ultimate resolution of the matter has potentially far-reaching impacts on the U.S. energy markets. Behind Texas, Pennsylvania is the United States’ second largest producer of natural gas. The state generated 19 percent of the United States’ total output in 2017 and has seen steady gains in production output since 2010. Further, the decision raises questions about whether other state courts may adopt the logic of the Pennsylvania Superior Court and similarly hold that trespass and conversion claims against hydraulic fracking are not precluded by the historic rule of capture.

Fracking industry rattled by major Pa. Superior Court ruling Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights