Falls and area residents opposed to a planned hazardous waste treatment plant shouldn’t hold their breath on a “clean air ordinance” vote anytime soon.
An ordinance proposed by local environmental group Bucks Power our Water & Air sought to have Falls enact clean air requirements in an effort that some believe could prevent the proposed Elcon Recycling Services LLC facility from opening on a 23-acre parcel of land previously owned by U.S. Steel in the township.
Elcon officials have said the facility would treat up to 193,000 tons of hazardous and pharmaceutical waste per year while maintaining safe air standards with “state-of-the-art” pollutant-reducing technology.
Critics of the proposal, several of whom spoke at Tuesday’s 45-minute public comment period at the Falls Board of Supervisors meeting, have likened the plans to a simple incinerator that will leak harmful pollutants into the air.
Supervisor Chairman Bob Harvie said Tuesday night Township Solicitor Michael Clarke reviewed the draft law and found state laws pre-empted the township from enacting it.
“Our attorney and his firm took a look, several times, at this issue and had discussions with other attorneys … but we do not have the ability to pass a clean air ordinance,” Harvie said.
The ordinance, drafted by attorney Mike Ewall, founder of the Energy Justice Network of Philadelphia, would enact monitoring, access to testing results and fines upward of $50,000 and jail time for each violation.
The draft ordinance provided by Ewall, a Bensalem native, would give any Falls “resident or taxpayer” the ability to sue Elcon for violating the ordinance.
Clarke was on vacation and unavailable for comment this week, but Harvie provided two letters referenced at Tuesday’s meeting that Clarke’s office reviewed.
The letters are from the Governor’s Office of General Counsel to Allentown officials in 2013, and another to Susquehanna municipal and county officials in 2016.
Harvie clarified Thursday he mistakenly referred to the Susquehanna County opinion as “a community in Lancaster County” on Tuesday.
Ratepayer watchdog contends utility overestimated how cost effective six-year program would be, recouping costs contrary to Clean Energy Act
Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight
Credit: Creative Commons
The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel is urging the state to reject a $2.78 billion proposal by Public Service Electric & Gas to invest in new energy-efficiency projects across its territory.
In filings with the state Board of Public Utilities, Rate Counsel’s experts argued the utility overstated how cost-effective the proposed six-year program would be. They also contended a provision to recoup revenues PSE&G would lose due to its energy-saving actions is contrary to the Clean Energy Act (CEA) signed by Gov. Phil Murphy last May.
PSE&G submitted the petition last September, part of a $4 billion filing, seeking to align its spending with the clean-energy bill signed only a few months earlier. The utility argued the money spent on 22 energy-efficiency programs would save customers more than $5.7 billion over the 20-year life of the program.
NJ’s national energy-efficiency ranking
New Jersey currently ranks 29th nationwide in energy savings, according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. PSE&G contends its energy-efficiency filing is the right thing to do for its customers and the state, according to Karen Johnson, a spokeswoman for the utility.
“The programs we have proposed will save customers billions of dollars in energy costs, create thousands of green jobs in New Jersey, improve air quality, and drastically reduce the state’s carbon footprint,’’ she said.
But Rate Counsel and its consultants argued the company’s filing is premature, since the BPU has yet to wind up its own proceeding regarding the interpretation of the clean-energy law and its requirements.“PSE&G does not have the authority to impose its own interpretation of the CEA in order to direct billions of dollars of ratepayers’ dollars to its proposed programs,’’ Erza Hausman, a consultant for Rate Counsel argued in a filing.
No exclusive for PSE&G
The Rate Counsel’s consultants also urged the BPU to reject the utility’s bid to become the exclusive agent for regulated energy-efficiency projects within its territory, a controversial proposal given that a competitive private market exists that could offer customers more varied choices in how to reduce energy use.“I wouldn’t want to see it monopolized,’’ said Rate Counsel director Stefanie Brand. “That’s not good for consumers. There’s a role for utilities, but it’s not necessarily the only game in town.’’Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates
leadership on curbing toxic chemicals; requires details of manufacture, use, and discharge of the chemicals
Jon Hurdle reports for NJ Spotlight
New Jersey stepped up its nation-leading efforts to curb toxic PFAS chemicals on Monday by ordering five industrial companies to pay for the investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites and hand over details on their manufacture, use, and discharge of the chemicals.
The Department of Environmental Protection said the companies are responsible for “significant contamination” of New Jersey’s water and air with the chemicals and have understood their toxic nature for decades even as scientists raise increasing concerns about health risks.
Now, the companies are being directed to compensate the DEP for its testing and remediation of the sites so far and to take responsibility for cleanup going forward.
“Respondents are responsible for the significant PFAS contamination across New Jersey and the costs the Department has incurred and will incur, responding to this threat to public health, safety, and the environment,” the DEP said in a 16-page directive.
It named Solvay Specialty Polymers and Solvay Solexis; E.I. Dupont de Nemours and DowDupont; Dupont Specialty Products; Chemours, and 3M as the responsible parties.
New health limits on two of the chemicals
It also announced long-awaited health limits on two of the chemicals — PFOA and PFOS — that will be formally adopted for drinking water on April 1. The new maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) of 14 parts per trillion and 13 parts per trillion, respectively, will match new state groundwater standards for the chemicals.
Last September, New Jersey became the first state in the country to regulate another PFAS chemical, PFNA, and is setting tough new standards in the absence of federal regulation. The chemicals, formerly used in consumer products like non-stick cookware and flame-retardant fabrics, are linked to some cancers and other complaints including low birth weights, immune-system problems, and elevated cholesterol.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which has been under pressure from advocates to set national standards on PFAS, said in February that it would begin the process of regulating PFOA and PFOS but didn’t specify limits nor say how long it would take to implement them.
Catherine McCabe, DEP commissioner
DEP Commissioner Catherine McCabe said any EPA regulation could take years to implement and so it was incumbent on states to act.
“Now is the time for action at the state level,” said McCabe. “The current EPA plan leaves millions of Americans exposed to harmful chemicals for too long by choosing a drawn-out process that will delay establishing a federal maximum contaminant level for PFAS.”
First in the nation
McCabe said the directive was the first of its kind in the nation and takes its authority from state laws on air and water pollution and spill compensation.
Ed Lloyd, an environmental law professor at Columbia University, said the department has the clear legal authority to issue the directive, which he said is certainly the first initiative of its kind on the PFAS chemicals.
“This is the use of comprehensive department authority to solve a problem in a comprehensive and complete way,” he said. “They have clear statutory authority to do this, and they are exercising it in an appropriate and legal manner.”
The Environmental Working Group, a national nonprofit that advocates for tougher PFAS standards, said New Jersey’s latest move shows that it is far ahead of the EPA in curbing the chemicals.
“New Jersey is taking real steps to address the statewide contamination of PFAS chemicals, and importantly ensure that the polluters are held responsible for funding the cleanup,” said EWG senior scientist, Dr. David Andrews, in a statement. “New Jersey should serve as a model for collecting information about past and ongoing PFAS use.”
‘…lack of federal action’
With its new move to hold manufacturers responsible, New Jersey confirmed its position as a leader in governmental efforts to protect public health from the chemicals.
“This is much-needed forthright action by New Jersey in the face of the expanding PFAS water crisis and the lack of federal action by the Environmental Protection Agency,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, an environmental group that has long campaigned for strict regulation of the chemicals. “The directive today and the proposal to adopt PFOA and PFOS safe drinking water standards on April 1 are providing the protection so urgently needed across the state, where PFAS contamination is amongst the highest in the nation.”
DEP tests of public water systems in all but one of New Jersey’s counties during 2009 and 2010 found up to eight PFAS chemicals in 70 percent of samples. In 2018, officials placed consumption advisories on some fish after they were found to contain the chemicals at 10 sites. By March 19 this year, about a fifth of public water systems sampled were found with as many as three PFAS chemicals at or above the official health limits, the DEP said.
Some private water wells are also contaminated. By June 2018, 284 private wells out of 992 sampled had PFOA at above the health limit, while 40 exceeded the limit for PFOS.
Clean Ocean Action Executive Director Cindy Zipf with fishermen and others opposed to an underwater natural gas pipeline from New Jersey across Raritan and Lower New York bays to Brooklyn. (Clean Ocean Action)
Richard Isaksen has been clamming and crabbing in Raritan Bay and fishing lower New York Bay for 50 of his 63 years. It’s a hard life, but it’s the only one he knows, and all he wants for himself and his fellow fishermen is to be able to keep plying those waters.“We ain’t asking for nothing,” said Isaksen, of Middletown, who’s the skipper of the 65-foot fishing boat Isaetta and president of the Belford Seafood Coop in Monmouth County. “We just want to make a living.”But that could much tougher, Isaksen said, if state regulators join federal counterparts in approving the so-called Raritan Loop, a 23-mile underwater natural gas pipeline that would run along the sea floor across Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay to Brooklyn.___________________________________________________ Editor’s Note: As the New Jerseyans were opposing the pipeline, an opposite lobbying effort was taking place on the New York side of the bay. Grid steps up pressure for undersea pipeline approval ___________________________________________________
“They’re going to interrupt everything in the bay,” said Isaaksen, whose Monmouth County fishing cooperative belongs to a coalition of environmentalists, fishermen and elected officials opposed to the project. “They’re going to rip up the clam beds. They’re going to destroy the crab beds where the crabs bed down. And then it goes out to Brooklyn, south of the Rockaways, right? That’s where we do our fluke fishing.” The Williams Companies, Inc., a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based company, has already been granted permits by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Raritan loop, part of Williams’ Northeast Supply Enhancement project, a $1 billion expansion of the 10,000-mile Transco Pipeline network stretching from Texas to New York.The Raritan Loop is a 26-inch pipeline that would form a loop with an existing gas pipeline, built in 1951 and operating at capacity, that also stretches across the Raritan and New York bays. The existing pipeline was meant to serve a much smaller market.A Williams spokesman, Chris Stockton, said the new stretch of the pipeline would serve a dual function: provide redundancy, or “reliability,” for the existing 1.8 million gas users in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and other parts of Long Island; and increase capacity to that market, which is expanding through new development and through some 8,000 customers converting each year from oil heat to natural gas.Stockton added any disruption to shellfish beds or fisheries would be temporary.Following completion of a final environmental impact study by Williams, FERC issued a finding on Jan. 25 that the project would not have a significant environmental impact, though the agency did conclude that it “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, right whale, fin whale, and Atlantic sturgeon.”The project still needs approvals from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which is now weighing its decision following a public hearing on March 18 in East Brunswick.The coalition has asked the DEP to hold another public hearing, this time somewhere along the Raritan Bayfront, and to extend the comment period, now set to expire April 17, in order to let those most impacted by the project voice their concerns. Asked Tuesday whether it would grant those requests, the DEP said no.“DEP has held two public hearings on this, including one last week,” a DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said in an email. “The DEP is under a statutory deadline to render a decision by (around) May 19. As part of its review, the DEP will consider public comments received both in writing and during the public hearings.”Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates
The planning commission voted against recommending the Elcon Recycling Services proposed hazardous waste treatment facility at the site of a former U.S. Steel operation.
Chris Ullery reports for the Burlington County Times
The Falls planning commission voted not to recommend plans for the controversial application from Elcon Recycling Services on Tuesday night amid cheers from a crowd of 80 people, and after word of warning from an attorney representing the company.
The 4-0 vote, with commission member Mary Leszczuk absent, came shortly after several public comments urging the panel to reject the plan and recommend the supervisors deny Elcon’s plant to process between 150,00 to 210,000 tons of chemicals and pharmaceutical waste each year.
Kim Freimuth, of Fox Rothschild, represented Elcon at the meeting and said early in the hearing the company was not seeking a vote from the commission Tuesday, and just prior to the vote it could have legal consequences. The panel voted anyway.
Freimuth said during the meeting the company was in the process of amending the application to address concerns and land development issues raised by the township’s staff and fire marshal.
A request to continue the meeting was not granted and Freimuth said the company was willing to come to a future meeting to address questions raised Tuesday that went beyond the scope of land development.
“We’re here to determine whether its appropriate for the zoning district and the planning commission, the legal stuff is up to the lawyers,” Commission Chairman Brian Binney said after the meeting.
“We determined that we didn’t feel it was appropriate for where they were proposing to put it.”
The company aims to build the facility on a 23-acre site in the Keystone Industrial Port Complex, an approximately 3,000-acre industrial park encompassing the former footprint of U.S. Steel’s Fairless Works operation not far from the Delaware River.
Elcon representatives say its facility would be state of the art and create up to 120 short-term construction jobs and about 50 full-time operations jobs. The company has said the plant would produce little pollution and adhere to all environmental regulations. Opponents, primarily made up of local residents and backed by local environmental groups, are skeptical.
Over the past several years, the proposal has ping-ponged, as Elcon submitted proposal materials and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection temporarily rejected them for deficiencies. But the latest version, submitted last July, cleared an initial bar, putting DEP on track to issue an intent to approve or deny in May.
Towering University Center under construction, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken. Rendering via Design Collective
Chris Fry reports for JERSEY DIGS
A stroll around Hoboken’s only higher education facility presently features a soundtrack of construction buzz, and the biggest project on campus that looks to reshape the city’s skyline will be commencing in the coming weeks.
Two glass towers and a new university center will soon be rising on a hilltop property at Stevens Institute of Technology, who recently put up fencing around two buildings just south of the Howe Center. Demolition work is slated to commence soon at Jacobus and Hayden Halls, two older brick buildings that will be replaced by the ambitious University Center.
The project is made possible by new zoning enacted by the city last year, which created a University District that allowed greater building height in certain areas of the campus. Hoboken’s planning board later approved the institute’s 75,000-square-foot University Center, which will be LEED Silver Certified and rise about 222 feet at the highest point. Plans were drawn up by Baltimore-based Design Collective and Wallace Roberts and Todd.
