On June 29, 2023, the NJFW Marine Resources Administration’s Artificial Reef Program sunk the 45’ TIBOR Tug on the Barnegat Light Reef Site. Built in 1957, the TIBOR Tug was originally used as a coastal tug around New York Harbor. It was also part of the Nautical Museum in Toms River for many years where it went into a state of disrepair.
Last year, Tibor Heteny, the vessel’s owner, donated it to the NJ Artificial Reef Program, specifically to be used as artificial reef habitat. The donation was graciously accepted and the Artificial Reef Program worked with Kurt Deyback at the Lighthouse Point Marina and Yacht Club in Toms River to ensure that the vessel met the requirements of the artificial reef guidelines for reefing vessels.
Plant manager Ryan Gregor holds handfuls of crushed glass at the Burlington County recycling facility in Westampton. All the crushed glass produced there goes to AeroAggregates, which uses it to create glass foam like that used to patch a fire-damaged portion of I-95 in Philadelphia.
Much has been said about the fill material propping up the temporary lanes built after the I-95 collapse. Particularly, how the material, which looks like a wall of pumice stone, is made of processed, recycled glass.
To be clear, no one is driving over broken glass jars or beverage bottles.
Eddystone, Pa.-based AeroAggregates sourced the refill substance from a New Jersey plant.
For the past four years, Burlington County has provided more than 7,000 tons of glass to AeroAggregates to make their foam glass material.
Burlinton County Commissioner Tom Pullion stands before piles of crushed glass at the county recycling facility in Westampton.
“We wouldn’t have this type of recycled material available if our residents didn’t take the time to sort [it] out and recycle,” said Burlington County Commissioner Deputy Director Tom Pullion. Overall, he adds, more than 84 million pounds of recyclable material — cardboard, glass, and plastic — has been kept out of landfills.
Pullion said the county and AeroAggregates have had a working relationship for the past several years.
“It’s been going quite well to the point that we manufacture approximately 10% of their total [amount of materials] for the year,” Pullion said.
The county collects recycling from all 40 of its municipalities.
Jade Eddy, owner of MT Returnables, stands next to bags of empty cans and bottles returned for 5 cent deposits at her business in Queensbury. Eddy says that the 3.5 cents-per-item fee authorized by the state for bottle redemption centers to collect on the returnables they take in is too low to make a profit, causing some return centers to close.Will Waldron/Times Union
QUEENSBURY — When Jade Eddy’s dad lost his job with the closure of the International Paper plant in Corinth 21 years ago, he needed something to do so he opened a bottle and can redemption center. To jump-start his business, he would drive around town looking for bottles and cans.
“I thought he had lost his mind,” Eddy said.
Requiring relatively little money but plenty of sweat equity, redemption centers take in recyclable cans and bottles, giving people a nickel for each container.
Her dad has since passed away and Eddy has continued at the center, MT Returnables, building it into a going business.
But in recent years, she’s been struggling to hold on and she’s seen more and more redemption centers fall by the wayside.
Consumers in New York like most states put down a nickel deposit on every can or bottle of beer, soda or water they buy. And they get that 5 cents back when they return it, either at the supermarket, the convenience store or at one of the 1,171 redemption centers across the state.
But the redemption centers only get 3.5 cents for accepting the cans and bottles, sorting them and having them shipped off for recycling. That amount hasn’t increased since 2008 and Eddy says the Legislature would need to approve any increase in the fee she receives since it is mandated in the law.
Eddy says she is barely staying in business and expects to be operating at a loss later this summer.
If you like this post you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily 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.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on its proposed cleanup plan to address contaminated sediment and surface water at the Quanta Resources Superfund site in Edgewater, New Jersey. A 30-day public comment period for the proposed plan begins July 7, 2023. EPA will host a public meeting at the Edgewater Community Center Gymnasium at 1167 River Road Edgewater, New Jersey, 07020, on July 25, 2023, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to explain the new cleanup proposal.
“EPA’s proposed cleanup plan will target a contaminated area of the Hudson River in Edgewater, where past industrial activities on the land have polluted the water and sediment,” said Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia. “Community input is key to our work on Superfund sites. EPA invites the public to join our meeting and get informed about the Quanta site and our proposed plan.”
The cleanup outlined in today’s proposed plan will address the sediment and surface water contamination in an area of the site called Operable Unit 2 (OU2). Sediment in OU2 is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), highly concentrated tar-like material referred to as non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), and arsenic.
Under the proposed plan, EPA would oversee work to:
Demolish the 115 River Road pier structure and remove other pilings and structures within the contaminated area.
Remove contaminated sediment to depths ranging from 10 to 30 feet and take it to a licensed facility off-site for disposal.
Place a cap over less contaminated areas of the river bottom to lock in residual contamination.
Establish “institutional” controls such as navigational restrictions, signs prohibiting swimming, wading or fishing, and other use restrictions to protect the cap.
Monitor sediment and surface water long-term to assess the effectiveness of the cleanup in preventing the migration of contaminants from sediment to surface water and maintaining the cap as needed.
Written comments on the EPA’s new proposed plan may be mailed or emailed to Thomas Dobinson, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway – 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Email: Dobinson.Thomas@epa.gov.
If you like this post you’ll love our environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily 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.
“This is a momentous day for the state because we are creating jobs for the future right now,” said Gov. Phil Murphy as he stood between massive steel supports and praised an agreement to boost financial support for a Paulsboro plant that builds monopiles for offshore wind turbines. The Paulsboro plant is scheduled to supply 98 of the gigantic 400-foot-long pylons for developer Ørsted’s first wind farm off the South Jersey coast. A new law Murphy signed Thursday guarantees that Ørsted will get federal tax credits and in return put up $200 million for South Jersey wind manufacturing facilities.
“They’re making this huge investment, and we’re doing it to capture manufacturing jobs which we would have lost to other states if this hadn’t been done,” said former Senate President Steve Sweeney. His think tank published a report, warning that fierce competition for wind industry business threatened to blow New Jersey away. Ørsted, which underwrites NJ Spotlight News, claimed rising costs threatened to cripple the project.
“The reality is, steel doubled in price, interest rates went up, so at the end of the day, we had to do something,” Sweeney said.
But if Ørsted gets federal tax credits, why not New Jersey’s other major offshore wind energy developer? Atlantic Shores said it wants the same deal that Ørsted got, stating, “We need an industry-wide solution, one that stabilizes all current projects, including Atlantic Shores Project 1.” That project sits right beside Ørsted’s two wind farm tracts. Murphy said, “We’re open-minded, absolutely open-minded. We want to make sure taxpayers get a good deal, jobs are created, that the corporates do what they say they’re going to do. Are we open-minded trying to figure out some common ground with the other offshore sequences? Absolutely.”
There’s backlash as Republicans call this a bailout. And some coastal towns object, worried that wind farms will harm marine mammals and spoil their view. New Jersey’s Division of Rate Counsel is also concerned because Ørsted will be optioning tax credits that otherwise would have gone to ratepayers. But environmental advocates emphasized that offshore wind energy helps address the climate crisis.
Ørsted also just received final federal approval for the project with construction slated to begin this fall.
If you like this post you’ll love our environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics.It’s packed daily 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.
Sadly, New Jersey may see further loss of legacy manufacturers like Nestlé given the extremes of the state’s recently adopted Environmental Justice rules.
Due to the expansive provisions of these new rules, the Nestlé plant is defined as being “disproportionately impacted” in an overburdened community. In fact, two-thirds of the state are now defined as being in an overburdened community under the new EJ law.
What we know about Nestlé is the company was considering closing the plant because its facility is “outdated.” We also know that Nestlé has a Title V air permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection and is thus subject to the EJ rules.
And we know that to comply with the EJ law, Nestlé would have to make substantial upgrades and perhaps meet other criteria that the rules do not even specify, but would be imposed during the permitting process. There would be no certainty in timing, process, standards, or outcomes. These are not ideal conditions to operate a plant.
During the two-year process that went into formalizing the EJ rules, we repeatedly warned that the proposed — and now final — regulations well exceeded legislative intent in their breadth, had no balance whatsoever for the business community and failed to recognize the benefits of the good-paying jobs and the economy.
