What Is HB 162?
HB 162 is a bill introduced on May 13 and is sponsored by Rep. Mulrooney, Sen. DeLuca and Sen. Sorenson. The text of the bill is the following (link here for all bills of the 145th General Assembly):
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 7 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO VESSEL TO VESSEL PETROLEUM TRANSFERS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
Section 1. Amend § 6095, Title 7 of the Delaware Code by renumbering the current subsection “(6)” to “(7)” and inserting a new subsection (6) to read as follows:
“(6) For vessel to vessel petroleum transfers on the waters of the Delaware River and Bay, obtaining a Clean Air Act Title V permit allows an entity to conduct vessel to vessel petroleum transfers, notwithstanding any other provision of Title 7; or”
SYNOPSIS
This act makes a technical change requiring entities conducting vessel to vessel petroleum transfers in the waters of the Delaware River and Bay to obtain a Clean Air Act Title V permit.
It looks and sounds pretty simple, right? Here’s what Green Delaware has to say about the bill:
Lots of bills get introduced in the Delaware General Assembly–on the order of one thousand per session. Some are good, some are bad, some are incomprehensible except to the special interests trying to pull something.
Rarely have I seen a bill as openly dishonest as House Bill 162, “AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 7 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO VESSEL TO VESSEL PETROLEUM TRANSFERS.”
This bill is about “lightering,” meaning partial unloading of oil tankers into smaller vessels so they ride higher in the water and can go farther up river. Lightering causes considerable air pollution and other environmental concerns. According to the DNREC, “Lightering operations represented the largest stationary VOC emission source in Delaware.” There’s been a good bit of litigation about it over the years.
The Synopsis of this bill states: “This act makes a technical change requiring entities conducting vessel to vessel petroleum transfers in the waters of the Delaware River and Bay to obtain a Clean Air Act Title V permit.”
That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
But guess what? Lightering already requires a Title V permit.
Now: look at what the body of the bill actually says:
“(6) For vessel to vessel petroleum transfers on the waters of the Delaware River and Bay, obtaining a Clean Air Act Title V permit allows an entity to conduct vessel to vessel petroleum transfers, notwithstanding any other provision of Title 7; or”
Guess what? Title 7 is the main body of Delaware’s environmental laws, including the Coastal Zone Act.
So the real effect of this bill would be to exempt lightering from the Coastal Zone Act, under which lightering is regulated as a “bulk transfer” facility. Other laws and regulations might also be effected.
[Editing notes: the text has been cleaned up slightly to fix the links, and to correct the name of the bill. Also, this particular information came from an email and I couldn’t find this particular alert at the Green Delaware website. If someone from Green Delaware sends a link, I’ll include it in the post.]
Apparently this bill is a hot topic in the local civic leagues. So, I open it up to our smart commenters and contributors – what is the purpose of this bill? Is it trying to get around Delaware environmental regulations, and if so, for what purpose? The floor is yours.
This bill begins to erode the Coastal Zone Act. Currently only one company is permitted to do this (grandfathered). The bill would enable others to follow suit. Bad, bad bill.
I see what you’re saying, PI, and I have a hard time getting over how dishonestly the bill is written. It purports to do one thing, but does another.
Once they start messing with the coastal zone act, it’s just a beginning.
At very first glance of this, I immediately thought that “Lightering” is back in the fray. This will never go away until something concrete closes whatever gap allows it to come up over and over.
Aside from the impact to the Coastal Zone Act, my first question is, what do the sponsors get out of it? Mulrooney is RD17. Does he get any advantage from the Port of Wilmington? Is that his district? I didn’t think so, but I also haven’t pushed my lazy butt into looking at the district lines. Of course, the communities Mulrooney represents could feasibly hold many Port employees.
DeLuca – Port-Union workers…more work. Easy calculation.
Sorenson – no freaking idea as to her backing of this, whatsoever.
Well I guess we’ll let them dredge the river to alleviate this problem.
This story is now posted on our site.
I’ve gotten lots of emails on this, including quite a few from Vic Singer, longtime member of the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board and an influential member of the Civic League.
Some people think the real intent of this bill is to create a back door for reviving the BP LNG (liquid natural gas) terminal project that was proposed to be built across the river from Claymont. The arguments are convoluted and I’m not sure who is right. What does seem clear is that this is a bad bill.
As for Mulrooney, he chairs the House Natural Resources committee so he’s an obvious target for lobbyists peddling anti-environment bills.
am
The link to the above comment has a typo and doesn’t work.
am
Vic Singer is probably the most knowledgeable person to discuss the ramifications of this bill. He lives in Meadowood and is probably listed in the phone book. He’s a brilliant man. I’m sure he’d talk to anyone who called him with an interest in knowing more.
Fixed your link, Alan.
I think we can all agree that no matter the intent of the bill, it is either poorly written or dishonestly written to disguise its purpose.
From the sounds of things on this bill, I’m becoming shocked there wasn’t an RFP attached to it! 😉
And here’s Smitty, tryin’ to start some stuff again. 😎
h made a sarcastic comment, but I do think that the whole lightering business goes away once the Delaware gets dredged to 45 ft. I don’t see why they need this bill since the process will go away in a couple of years. I think. But as a venue to try to weaken the CZA for other — industrial — purposes on the Delaware, this might be a backdoor way to getting that done.
And here’s Smitty, tryin’ to start some stuff again.
Who, me?! 😈
Sorry, it was lunch hour, I was feeling creative for a fleeting moment.
~ but I do think that the whole lightering business goes away once the Delaware gets dredged to 45 ft. ~
cass you say that like the decision has been made by the Markell Administration to allow the dredging. Last time I asked they were still mulling it all over, and I’m still holding out hope that they reject dredging because it will be an environmental disaster for Delaware.
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/im-just-gonna-go-lay-in-a-pile-of-mercury-and-get-it-over-with/
~ “The Corps would dredge 33 million cubic yards of sediment – some containing high concentrations of mercury, lead and PCBs – and deposit the sediment at sites along the river, including Bombay Hook, a National Wildlife Refuge and a Wetland of International Importance. Plans to blast a granite portion of the riverbed pose risks to rare short-nosed sturgeon.” ~
I don’t know if a decision has been made, but I would be surprised if they don’t do it. Perhaps they’ll get a different dredge spoils management plan out of it, but without the dredging, all ports on the Delaware are not competitive with other ports on the east coast. Lawsuits will likely be filed from everyplace, but those lawsuits have to show that the EIS the Corps did was faulty. Not impossible, but certainly tough.
cass “33 million cubic yards” of potentially toxic waste…where would you like to see it dumped in Delaware?
The only cost effective way to do the dredging is to dump it along the coast line, because it would be too costly to truck it off to less environmentally sensitive areas.
And while the dredging is going on (a ten year project btw), all of that loose sediment that isn’t sucked up and dumped directly on our shoreline will shoot down the river and right towards Lewes and Cape Henlopen State Park and our beaches, so then we’ll get to swim and fish in it. Hooray!
Does Delaware really need MORE cancer/disease risks or do you think we have enough already? Infant mortality rate not high enough yet?
When are we going to learn that toxins are a health risk? Ever?
I consider dredging the Delaware a make-it-or-break-it environmental issue for the Markell Administration. It will surely let us know if his new DNREC Director is more interested in his current job, which is (supposed to be) protecting our state’s natural resources, or in economic development, which is his background.
I agree with Maria that the dredging is a bad deal and should not be done.
It’ s true that Maritrans, the monopoly lightering operator, has opposed the dredging project out of self-interest.
But I don’t think the dredging would stop lightering entirely. The proposed project depth is 45 feet and loaded tankers draw more than that. The draft limit of the Suez Canal, for instance, is 53 ft and it’s being deepened. Ships have been built that draw over 80 feet.
Not all of the 33 million is toxic waste — not by a long shot. If it was, it would be a bigger problem than the Hudson River. It is entirely possible — and done alot — to mix the most toxic stuff with the less toxic stuff to get material that meets the requirements. It isn’t pretty, but all these guys really have to do is to get to material that tests less than set action levels. The placement of the material (not exactly the material itself) is a question though. I haven’t seen the EIS itself, and based upon the little I have read of this project, I don’t think that any of its critics have, either.
“I agree with Maria that the dredging is a bad deal and should not be done.”
But Alan, it’s a shovel-ready project! Why don’t you want to help the president save a million jobs? And just think of all the DNREC jobs that will be created to figure out what to do with the PCBs!
~ “It is entirely possible — and done alot — to mix the most toxic stuff with the less toxic stuff to get material that meets the requirements. It isn’t pretty, but all these guys really have to do is to get to material that tests less than set action levels.” ~
You’re joking, right? Because that doesn’t mean LESS toxins to seep into our land or the water, it just means a bigger pile of crap for the toxins to seep out of….
Cassandra: The dredging has nothing to do with the ports on the Delaware; that is and always has been a red herring. The ships they really care about are oil tankers, and the refineries along the river are the proposed beneficiaries.
FWIW, the Delaware River, like the rest of the rivers on the East Coast, would have to dig halfway to China to get to the natural depth of the Virginia ports at and near the mouth of the Chesapeake.
The choice here is very simple: Continue to treat the Delaware River as an industrial waterway, with the entailing environmental problems but lots of jobs for stevedores, or take back our natural resource from the robber-barons who have turned it into an alimentary canal, with Delaware Bay as the sphincter.
The impetus for the channel deepening may be oil tankers, but there is no doubt that shipping has been going to deeper drafting ships. Shipping competitiveness is not likely a very big deal now since the market for shipping of goods has fallen through the floor.
It has been a long time since the Norfolk or Richmond ports have been at their natural depths. Norfolk has had multiple channel dredging projects to get some of their channels to the 50+ feet they think they need. Port of NY and NJ are embarking on a similar channel dredging project.
I don’t have an opinion one way or another about new shipping opportunities at the Ports of Philly, Camden and Wilmington other than to say that when ports close to you are taking on capability for deeper drafting ships it gets lots harder to be competitive.
And @Maria — not joking. This is done all of the time. If you have to place material that is less than 1ppm of a contaminant for instance, regulators approve mixing it down in the right material all of the time. The trick is in having the right ecological risk/ human health risk data to justify that. But the Delaware is not the Hudson River or the Fox River.
This is ridiculous, how about NO “human health risk” for a change? How about conducting state business in a way that DOESN’T increase the cancer/disease risk or the infant mortality rate?
But then that would actually mean defying “The Delaware Way” and God knows that can’t be done…our health deserves to be sacrificed for special interest groups and lobbyists.
There is a 1M ton pile of ‘mixed use toxins’ sitting out on Cherry Island….I’d say that is more than enough.
Alan and others have been challenging the Corp. on dredging for years now. Why do you think they call it ‘spoils’?
NO Dredging on the Delaware River.
But then that would actually mean defying “The Delaware Way” and God knows that can’t be done…our health deserves to be sacrificed for special interest groups and lobbyists.
Actually, no.
It would mean taking a good hard look at the risk assessment portions of the EIS and other supporting docs and making a case against the project with the data they use. As I said — it is hard to do, but it can be done. The people evaluating/regulating this thing are making their case with this data. You have to use it (or find someone who can) to throw a wrench in the works.
Ms. Cassandra:
Not at all. Telling people to play the game the regulators’ way is telling them to give up. The whole “risk assessment” approach was created by polluters, not by God.
Your argument is also bullshit in a technical sense–the equivalent of arguing that air pollution can be solved by taller smokestacks. this was a popular regulatory approach until very recently. “The solution to pollution is [NOT] dilution.”
Whether there would be any economic benefits to the Port of Philadelphia I don’t know, but the Corps has never been able to make a convincing cost-benefit case, and has been found over and over again to be cooking the books.
The refineries have never been visible as supporters of the deepening. The various owners of the Delaware City Refinery have seemed indifferent.
You are misreading me — telling you how the regulators will work is not the same as telling anyone to play the game their way. I’ve made no argument for dilution except to say that this is a legit approach according to regulators in certain circumstances.
As for the refiners — those in Marcus Hook are likely very happy about this. Not only do they get a deepening of the channel to 45 ft, but theirs is the only anchorage that also gets deepened to 45ft. If they get the deeper drafting ships, then they no longer have the lightering costs to deal with.
I spent some time looking a the Corps’ EIS this evening. And this business about just disposing the dredge material at sites along the river including at Bombay Hook doesn’t tell the whole story. Dredge spoil material is planned to be disposed of at multiple Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) along the river. There are a few sites in NJ and DE were material is planned for beneficial reuse.
These CDFs are engineered and contained areas (approved by the Feds) where dredge material gets placed. The material is sequestered (dykes, berms, other physical barriers) from the adjacent or nearby waterbody and usually has some water management plan, especially for material that is very highly contaminated. In any event, in Delaware, the plan is to dispose of material in the CDF at Reedy Point — a place (among other CDFs in DE) where spoils material from maintenance dredging ops of the shipping channel of the river have been placed for years. In fact, a local construction outfit has bought about 1M cy of material from Reedy Point for backfill material. But I digress. Other material is planned for Beneficial Reuse. Kelley Island (south of Bombay Hook) would get some material to help restore fast eroding shoreline and to re-establish important saltmarsh wetlands. Broadkill Beach is another site for beneficial reuse, but I can’t tell yet for what. Interestingly, the original disposal plan called for the creation of three new CDFs to contain the material (all in NJ it looks like). The refreshed plan doesn’t need the additional capacity because they now have many more years of data about how much sediment gets removed during maintenance ops AND there are way better tools to measure the channels with.
The contamination of concern is not the hair on fire PCBs but some metals and PAHs and the only acute concentrations were for copper.
So wherever the original data about placing material at Bombay Hook came from, it doesn’t tell anywhere near the real story of what is planned here. And seriously, folks – if you are planning to oppose this thing, you can’t walk in opposing measures or even contamination that doesn’t exist.
Bombay Hook is a a national wildlife refuge. Do migratory birds do better in potentially contaminated dredge spoils? Is copper conducive to bird reproduction? Mercury? PCBs? Copper is toxic to fish, but there aren’t any fish around the Delaware River, eh?
And Broadkill Beach is where people live and fish and swim, and raise their children…I’m not willing to bet people’s lives on any analysis by this same Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401819.html
It’s cavalier attitudes like yours, cass, that gave us 50 + years of toxic pollution at the Indian River Power Plant, high infant mortality rates, and cancer clusters. You are why “The Delaware Way” exists. Thanks.
One more thing…the “physical barriers” that will “sequester” the “very highly contaminated” sludge, will they be like the porous barrier they put around Burton’s Island, the Indian River Power Plant’s ash island that’s eroding into the river?
Yes, I said “porous.” That “barrier” is porous because someone decided that allowing the toxins to leak out slowly was an acceptable health risk.
OK, don’t kill me here, but I have to give an assessment on what Cass has been saying. I sincerely don’t think she is trying to defend or promote the opposing view to yours (Maria and Alan). I do think she has broken down the analysis done by the engineers in favor of this and is presenting that analysis in a way to tell you that if you are going to fight this battle effectively, these are the points they are presenting. It seems they have detailed points A-Z, but you’re arguing against points A-C, maybe D. Yours are all great arguments, mind you, and I agree with you, but in an economic-driven government, if you can’t counter the rest of the list, you may end up getting the screws in the end.
In other words, reshape (do NOT abandon) your battles and tread tactfully to counter each point.
Honestly, I’m kind of feeling bad for Cass, whom I am seeing as telling you what they are saying, but not wanting to promote it. Yet, the backlash is treating her as their lobbyist, which just isn’t accurate.
I see it that way as well, Smitty. Cassandra’s comments strike me as an informative heads up. When it comes to a fight on this issue understanding how the engineers, in favor of this, will present their argument will be crucial.
Thank you, Smitty and Pandora — I am not advocating for this thing, but looking at thesource docs for the basic info. But it is OK with me if you’d rather go with second or third hand info. Because that info does not tell you that:
1) The Reedy Point CDF is in operation now. And has been for some time. And it takes dredge spoils from current O&M dredging of the channel.
2) Material from the O&M dredging (from the reaches of the channel south of Wilmington, where contamination is quite minimal) is currently being used for backfill, wetlands restoration and beach replenishment.
So basically a smaller scale of this operation has been ongoing for quite awhile in the effort to maintain this channel and the disposal solution for this operation is to go bigger. Which — if you really understood this process — would tell you something about the magnitude of your challenge here. But in the meantime, it is sort of fun to know that a cavalier attitude is associated with actually reading the source documents.
Good luck with your fight. That may be all you can count on here.
~ So basically a smaller scale of this operation has been ongoing for quite awhile in the effort to maintain this channel and the disposal solution for this operation is to go bigger. ~
So our Governor gets another opportunity to say that “you can’t be half pregnant” when he slaps the seal of approval on dredging. I’m looking forward to that.
You said it yourself, cass, there’s going to be “very highly contaminated” sludge, and it’s going to be deposited on the shores of the state. That’s sludge that can sit quietly forever on the floor of the Delaware River. But instead of letting it sit there, Delaware will allow it to be dredged up, for the benefit of Pennsylvania.
Just like Delaware allowed the IRPP to pollute for over 50 years to generate power. Incidentally, only 11% of the power generated by the IRPP is sold to Delaware energy users, the rest is sold out of state. So bummer about your cancer, people in Sussex, but find comfort in the fact that people in Pennsylvania are getting cheap power.
We should ALL be pretty damn tired of sacrificing our health, the health of our families and our precious natural resources to industry and particularly out of state industry.
This is what I said about contaminated:
These CDFs are engineered and contained areas (approved by the Feds) where dredge material gets placed. The material is sequestered (dykes, berms, other physical barriers) from the adjacent or nearby waterbody and usually has some water management plan, especially for material that is very highly contaminated.
In describing why a CDF might have to have a water management plan.
This is what I said about what the EIS says the material contains:
The contamination of concern is not the hair on fire PCBs but some metals and PAHs and the only acute concentrations were for copper. This doesn’t count as highly contaminated. Which is why this is NOT a hazardous waste project — it is a dredging project. Which already has a published notice for bid up.
If you want to fight this thing, you need to know its history and what all of the parts of the EIS and the regulations people have to live with. The dredge material in the shipping channel won’t be as contaminated as the material right off of Deepwater, say. No one is dredging near Deepwater every year. They are dredging that channel every year (if not more). They are using some of that material for various beneficial reuse items now — like beach replenishment. If you and the folks who have their hair on fire over this thing cared about this material — really — you would have been all over this as the yearly maintenance dredging occurred. But hey. You’re just going to sit at your computer and misrepresent what I said instead of getting in the game.
~ You’re just going to sit at your computer and misrepresent what I said instead of getting in the game. ~
Now THAT is a misrepresentation. I’ve been “in the game” far more than most bloggers in Delaware when it comes to the environment.
No, Maria, you are misrepresenting what Cassandra has said. There are no lower shelves to put it on.
Cassandra knows her stuff here, and I know that you are anti-dredging. Fine, I can’t say that I am pro-dredging (actually, I’m in favor of using any spoils to fill in the C&D canal) but you haven’t addressed the Corps report as presented by Cassandra. If you want to discuss it, great. That’s what we like around here.
But if you want to run around screaming that anyone that questions you is a polluting baby-killer, well, I can’t promise you that we will treat you well. I know that you have thought about this, so answer the goddamn questions.
actually, I’m in favor of using any spoils to fill in the C&D canal
You anti-Chesepeake Inn MO-FO! It’s so on, now! Let’s go! Two rounds at Bogey’s, Jason’s buying! Ding-ding! Of course, I really could do without Canal Days and the increasingly uncontrollable mess it’s become, but that’s another topic.
Well, I’ve little interest in arguing about this, but somebody might read this thread…. so:
The reason the River hasn’t yet been deepened is that advocates have spent thousands of hours reading reports, going to meetings and hearings, talking with Corps staff….listening more or less politely to official lies and bullshit. It would be courteous and reasonable to suppose they already have some idea how the game is played.
More, environmental campaigns are seldom won on purely technical grounds, if only because the proponents can usually afford many more experts and consultants. It’s easy enough to hire consultants who will say pollution is good for you, contaminated fish are safe to eat, the moon is made out of green cheese, or whatever….
Maria is, indeed, in the environmental game far more than most Delaware bloggers. I respect her for it.
am
I won’t be one to mess with Maria’s spirit in her debate on this. She is exremely enviro-sensitive, so this really strikes a deep chord. I completely understand where she is coming from on this and also how she feels constantly screwed over down her way with anything IRPP (posterboy of gov’t-allowed screw jobs) and the shizzit-farm that ALMOST got plopped (no pun intended) across the street from her subdivision (for communities miles away…no benefit for hers or surrounding areas). There are others, oh yes there are, but those are two of the bigger fights of late. Not to mention, and this is a very real sentiment, there’s quite a bit of Sussex County, as I have learned recently, that feels they have been getting the shoulder from the state. Recall my recent rants about portraying image and the resulting impact and you can catch my drift.
That said…
Maria, please try to understand that Cass is NOT trying to fight you on this, she really isn’t. She is debating some of your points, because those who seek to get this dredging (and dumping) will make hay of the arguments against it in the current framework. It’s like what I said above in #30, Cass is fully aware that the proponents now have a lengthy list for, to go up next to your against. Cass is not misleading you or attempting to cause you to stray or make you be quiet, etc. She raises good points that need to be analyzed heavily for a much stronger argument against this. Your arguments are right and just, but as Cass has pointed out, the proponents have completely ratcheted up their side and the opposition needs to match it now or get the screws when it comes time for hearings. If anything, Cass has done good to bring up their points, so they are known now, rather than discovered at the time of the hearing! Take what she said, dismantle it, portion it, parse it, do whatever, but analyze the freak out of it and use it to keep that deathly-polluted junk at the bottom. I got the hell out of Dioxin-central Edgemoor some 20 years ago. The last thing I want is that (and other) industrial waste crap ever getting stirred up. It should have NEVER been put there in the first place, but since it was allowed to settle, let it lay. I’m not sure eradication is even possible for that junk, so again, let it lay.
Maria is, indeed, in the environmental game far more than most Delaware bloggers. I respect her for it.
Agreed.
Maria, an extension to that…I really enjoyed your posts on environmental issues when you were at that Girls-Gone-Wild-Party-Bus terrestial-radio station. I miss those…bring ’em back, damn it!
Relying on Army Corps of Engineers reports is a joke. I made this point earlier, this is the same Corps that said the levies in New Orleans were peachy.
And gee, sorry if the DL crew doesn’t appreciate my tone, but when you live in an area where the cancer rates are through the roof and polluters are let off with a slap on the wrist, and people’s health concerns are ignored, you just get pissed off at people who seem complacent.
I’m sick of making sacrifices when it comes to our health and our environment so industry can profit. I would imagine most Delawareans would be about where I am on this by now, and frankly I’m yet to be convinced that our new Governor is going to be any different when it comes to environmental issues and our health than our last Governor.
Blah, blah, blah. You make it so hard to be on your side.
Relying on Army Corps of Engineers reports is a joke. I made this point earlier, this is the same Corps that said the levies in New Orleans were peachy.
Oh yes, the Army Corps of Engineers are a bunch of buffoons that are trying to poison and drown us.
Really, I know you must have learned something from going to all those meetings and your years of research. Try and lower the bile and put your thinking cap on.
The proposed spoils would be put in various places. By the federal definition of contaminated, they aren’t. So… Are the regulations too lax, is someone lying about the extent of the contamination at the bottom of the river, or is there something else going on here?
What do you know? I was able to put it on a lower shelf.
Yes, accusing people who show any sort of disagreement with you of wanting to poison children and cause cancer is not the way to win friends and influence people. It feels sort of like the Republican’s purity purge to me.
My purpose was to let people know about the bill and to solicit information on it. I think that has happened. What happens next? I don’t know. Is there sufficient concern for people to start pressuring their GA reps to stop the bill? I hope so. Just because this particular bill goes away doesn’t mean the issue will go away.
Cass is right that if we want to have an effect on the debate in a positive way, we have to come armed with knowledge – as much if not more knowledge that your opponents. This is one of those issues where one can get stuck with the dreaded “NIMBY” label which doesn’t help one’s cause.
I still don’t know what I think of the larger issue. I don’t feel like I have enough knowledge to say right now. I do know that I think this bill is a bad one, and I hope we can stop it.
The proposed spoils would be put in various places. By the federal definition of contaminated, they aren’t. So… Are the regulations too lax, is someone lying about the extent of the contamination at the bottom of the river, or is there something else going on here?
Geek…you’d be surprised how effed up Federal Guidelines are. Granted, it was over thirty years ago, but Love Canal in Osewgo (?), NY was said to be below Federal contamination guidelines. Well, they certainly effed that one up. I did a high-school term paper on that travesty and that is what opened my eyes to our government and it’s long time rape of our environment via policies. Northeast, MD was damned close to a toxic site in areas in the late-70’s as well, but thanks to Love Canal and a major unrest of residents, it was abated. Why? Federal guidelines that were quite clueless to reality but comfy to the economy.
The self-identified peacemaker continues the odd journey…
Now, on to my friend. I think her mistrust of these guidelines and those who make those guidelines run deeper, way deeper, than I now think you imagine. Like I said last night (#39 – 1st para), there’s a lot of reason (implied or explicit) for her area to be reactive to this and protective of their position. Does it make it right for you to just to have to accept it? Of course it doesn’t and that’s not what I am saying here.
Maria – I can’t do this much more, but I want to. They are not trying to swat away your position here. Everything I read here is what you will get from the proponents and it is an attempted constructive breakdown of what you will get in a hearing when bringing opposition. What Cass has offered, and no offense to Cass, isn’t even half of what would be thrown at you in a hearing. Like Alan said last night, they will lawyer this thing to the point that they will convince a board that pollution is good for you. That certainly is not what Cass is saying here, though. She has taken your comments, but countered that they claim they can do this-that-other and make it less dangerous. She isn’t being a proponent at all, but telling you they have an argument that could very well convince a board (that likely will have no business being in that capacity) to accept their argument. Add that to Alan’s concern about them convincing people bad is good, and you have a tremendous problem. They’ve attempted (and I thought done well) to make this a cautionary tale, not an attack.
Your spirit is good, your concern is good and on the correct side, but your interpretation of their intent of this thread, I believe, is being misled by your passion of the issue. There are bullet points gallore to take from this thread that can be prodded and used for a good opposition front. Instead, I am afraid you see it as an attack on you and the good that you stand for and it will be lost. PLEASE consider this.
Oh, and Geek, Cass, UI…on the flip-side, I obviously respect that this is your place, but understand this is a deeply passionate and personal position of hers and the image (not your thread, but the overall image of the situation) is that people of her’s and Alan’s position are that they just can’t get an audience next to the bullhorn of the industry. It’s highly frustrating.
This feel-good really has me all creepy, like ants on my skin, but I do consider you all good-acquaintances/friends and it’s very frustrating to see you all go at it like this, when, from my observation, you all are so damned close but just so slightly askew, that you don’t connect. Now go get some Pornstache Ale together (complete with prop-moustache) and enjoy.
Geek…you’d be surprised how effed up Federal Guidelines are.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. That is the point I was trying to drag out of Maria. So much for teaching her to fish… 🙂
So if the guidelines are effed up, those need to be fixed. The bad news is that they are the guidelines that will be used to decide if the dredging spoils can be placed at Bombay Hook. I honestly haven’t dug into them enough, but I suspect that the regulations are embedded in some Republican sponsored legislation called “The Water-So-Clean-That-A-Fish-Wouldn’t-Dare-Live-In-It Act” But that is just a partisan guess.
So if the regulations are the issue, Maria, Alan and the rest of us that don’t want to swim in toxic waste will have an uphill battle if the law is against us. So we need data. That’s all we are asking for.
Love Canal in Osewgo (?), NY was said to be below Federal contamination guidelines
30 years ago there were not federal contamination guidelines basically. Love Canal is how it all got started.
that people of her’s and Alan’s position are that they just can’t get an audience next to the bullhorn of the industry. It’s highly frustrating
I actually get to watch this up close and personal. I get the frustration. But I will also tell you that some of the frustration is self-inflicted. If you are walking into a room full of regulators and owners with some opposition to their plans AND you demonstrate right off the bat that you don’t know 1) the details of the plan at hand and 2) the regulatory framework within which the project has to work — you have just given that room full of regulators and owners a gift.
The Corps is not infallible. But you won’t get far by dismissing them. You do get somewhere by getting fluent enough with what they did to get to their conclusion to be able to impeach those portions that may be questionable. And this does work. There are groups affecting environmental projects all over that are taking the time to play right where the regulators have to make their decisions. No one ever gets everything they want, but there are people grappling with the data and the regs to push stuff like this into the good column.
And I’ll remind people that I live here too. And if the environmental “movement” here wants to address some of the big issues here, getting smarter about the battles is job one. I am not arguing for this dredge project, I’m arguing for fighting it smarter. But that means getting up to speed on the science and regs — not just “believing” that there’s something fishy.
I forgot that DL only entertains comments that follow the guidelines of the Harvard Debate Council.
The Army Corps of Engineers did 86 sediment samples for a 102 mile project. If they did the samples in a straight line, that would be about one sample for every 1.2 miles. Hardly indicative of what will be found when the dredging begins. There is no data for how or where those samples were taken.
The ACoE measures the toxins in the samples and their impact on humans, fish, the environment, etc…separately, and not as a whole, this was addressed by Delaware Audobon:
http://www.delawareaudubon.org/action/deriver2.html
~ The Army Corp of Engineers asserts that their sample testing shows none of the dredged sediment would contain harmful levels of contamination therefore, posing no threat to human health. Delaware Audubon disagrees. P.4-19, section4.1. To evaluate potential human health impacts associated with disposal of channel sediments, bulk data were compared to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Residential, Non-Residential, and Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup Criteria. These criteria were established to provide a technical basis for evaluating levels of chemical contamination, and the associated risks to human health. Depending on the contaminant, the human health criteria are based on an additional lifetime cancer risk of 1 of 1,000,000 or 1 of 100,000. Delaware Audubon asks the question: If each of the above 128 contaminants pose an additional lifetime risk of cancer, what is the sum total of additional cancer risk to humans based on the levels of contaminants found throughout the project area? ~
DNREC did a study of the project where they concluded this:
~ In summary, we believe that the net benefits of the Delaware River deepening project are overstated, and the costs are understated. Additional quantification beyond the scope of this effort is needed to determine whether the benefits of the project justify the costs from a national perspective. Many of the benefits are national in scope, and the Delaware share of benefits appear modest and but not well quantified by existing studies. Thus, we also find no compelling evidence that the project as planned is a good investment from the perspective of the State of Delaware. ~
The DNREC study also points out that some of the ACoE assertions are false, like the benefits of the dredging to beach replenishment. DNREC notes that beach replenishment will go on with or without the river dredging project, and also notes that ACoE is unable to show how using the river dredging materials will save the state any money.
Using the spoils to beef up Broadkill Beach is something the ACoE uses as a benefit to the state. However, in the past, Broadkill has been known to use materials shipped in from DelDOT projects to do just that.
Using the spoils to beef up wetlands is also seen as a benefit, but again, this can be done without the spoils. May I also add that the ACoE has a long history of projects that end up adversely affect wetlands, New Orleans being a prime, and horrific example.
There are thousands and thousands of tons of materials right here in Sussex that can be used for bulking up beaches and wetlands…the huge tonnages of materials that were removed from the Indian River Bridge approaches readily come to mind.
There are also several, conflicting cost benefit studies associated with this project. It’s important to note, again, that these studies address the national benefits to the project, but don’t deal with the benefits to Delaware specifically.
The Delaware Riverkeeper has fought this issue for 15 years. They have read the reports, they have argued the issues, and they stand ready with litigation to stop this project. You can check out their action page here:
http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/takeaction/currentissueslearnmore.asp?ID=1&cat=Dredging&subcat=Delaware%20Deepening
There’s an interesting U of D study on that page you may want to check out.
Here are some common themes in all of the research done by opposing groups and independent researchers:
~ 80% of the benefits from dredging the river will go to 6 oil companies located in Pennsylvania.
~ There are no studies that give an accurate assessment of the health and environmental impacts of the dredging project.
~ The actual benefits to the State of Delaware are seen as “minimal” over and over again.
Delaware Riverkeeper also points this out:
~ The mega-container ships being built for the future require a depth of at least 50 feet and so could not be accommodated by the Delaware regardless of the proposed deepening project.
~ Delaware River ports are 100 miles, a great distance, from the Atlantic and therefore cannot compete with other Eastern Ports which are closer to the ocean and therefore are a less costly destination.
I would also like to point out that Bluewater Wind committed to using the Port of Wilmington as their east coast shipping hub without the need for deepening the shipping channel, and NJ Congressman Robert Andrews made this point back in 2007:
http://www.house.gov/list/hearing/nj01_andrews/3_13_07.html
~ “The South Jersey Port Corporation, from 2004 to 2005, doubled its container business,” Andres said. “The river was not an inch deeper.”~
Thank you. That is so much better than “Stop poisoning my children!!!”
“But if you want to run around screaming that anyone that questions you is a polluting baby-killer, well, I can’t promise you that we will treat you well.”
I’m still giggling at that line. You do realize that’s pretty much SOP here, right Geek?
baby-killer.
🙂
baby-killer.
More like burger-killer. 😈
Oh damn, did I go there? 😉
Did anyone notice that none of the data Maria cut and pasted here addresses the new Environmental Assessment?
You are just making my point for me here.
Cassandra – do you have a link, by chance?
“Stop poisoning my children” is the bottom line, however, Geek.
We have a different relationship with the river in Sussex than you have in NCCo. I lived in NCCo most of my life (31 years), and the only time I SAW the river was when I was on the train from Wilmington to Philly, or when I was driving down Governor Prince Blvd praying I wouldn’t get car-jacked.
In Sussex, we fish in the river, we swim, waterski and play in the river, it’s a much bigger part of our daily lives.
And it’s easy to point out that the array of toxins that will be dredged up are within the guidelines, but as Audobon points out, when you mix them, it can all go out the window.
It’s like…you can get shot in the chest and live. But what if you get shot in the chest and stabbed in the back…is your chance of survival going to remain the same? How about if you get shot in the chest, stabbed in the back, and hit in the head with a baseball bat?
Now what if that goes on for 5 to 10 years?
Get it?
Smitty, I thought you were my friend. Damn.
I was driving down Governor Prince Blvd praying I wouldn’t get car-jacked
Oooo…sorry Maria. That was probably me, back when I lived in Edgemoor. I saw it was one of you “richies” and put on my mean face. Then I went and played on the banks of the DE River. FWIW, that development of my third arm has come along quite nicely over the years.
Smitty, I thought you were my friend. Damn.
Ooo. My bad. I meant to say:
More like CHEESEburger-killer.
“More like CHEESEburger-killer.”
Thank you.
(actually, I’m in favor of using any spoils to fill in the C&D canal)
If we dredge the river to 85 feet deep, there will be enough spoils to build a wall instead. I’d call that a win-win.
OK, new question on an old point here, if dredging this river is so important to DE (which I don’t get, because this is a benefit for PA and NJ…the biz at the Port of Wilm does not necessitate a deepening of the channel, but stuff for PA and NJ does), what is the realizable economic benefit to DE? Not potential, but tangible? That is the driving force, no? It has to be economic, because it sure the heck isn’t environmental. We can count for a good period of time on how NJ and PA benefit, but seriously, what about DE? Yeah, this gets back to my way earlier comment about an economic-driven government and the inferred point of how that trumps environment just about 100% of the time. Going back to the references of the Hudson, has anyone checked out what has really happened to the most-polluted of the crap up there? It’s an interesting point that should be applied here. If NJ and PA want it so bad and are driving our future health (for those of us in river-influenced areas), let them foot the freaking bill to treat it, then let them keep it.
And it’s easy to point out that the array of toxins that will be dredged up are within the guidelines, but as Audobon points out, when you mix them, it can all go out the window.
So why didn’t you make this point (or any point, really) until comment #47? All I got was comments like this:
It’s cavalier attitudes like yours, cass, that gave us 50 + years of toxic pollution at the Indian River Power Plant, high infant mortality rates, and cancer clusters. You are why “The Delaware Way” exists. Thanks
If that doesn’t strike you as shrill and a misrepresentation, I’m not sure what will. I can’t help you make better points, but I wish you could stop screaming and actually discuss this rationally.
From what I can tell, the question at hand is the new EIS. Any comments on it?
Oh, and with all the playing that you Sussex Countians do in the river, I feel I must warn you of the most dangerous compound in the Delaware River, Dihydrogen Monoxide. I am certain that most people in Sussex have extremely high concentrations of it in their bodies. The number of people that die because of it every year is quite high.
Oh, and with all the playing that you Sussex Countians do in the river…
Obviously, it’s the Bay down there, but still influenced just the same as the river flows into it.
Smitty – You can’t discuss the economic logic of it… Think of the children!
Seriously, what do we get out of the canal? Think of the greenway that we could create! The Chesapeake In could become Chesapeake on the Green.
Smitty, click on the link and do the chemical math.
Actually, the canal provided an easy way for us Appoquiniminkians to thumb our collective noses at you damned elitist yanks up there.
Really, MD benefits quite well from it. I think we have a single restaurant location on it that changes hands almost daily, because no one can ever find it. The only thing I can seriously think of is the Tug service, but how much is that? BTW, that-that DE Canal? It is the ACoE puppy. Touch it, and you get polluted silt deposited for free in your front yard and all over your green hybrid, pal.
Yeah, cass, I read that report. It says that the horseshoe crab population can be affected AND the blue crab population could take a significant hit.
Its “new” assessment also sports exactly NO new sediment studies, a fact that is addressed by the Delaware Riverkeeper:
~ April 6, 2009, Philadelphia, PA, the Army Corps of Engineers released an Environmental Assessment asserting that no new environmental studies were required by law for the proposal to deepen the Delaware River’s main navigation channel.
“That the Army Corps of Engineer’s would take this position in light of the wealth of questions and concerns raised by state and federal environmental agencies and experts as recently as December shocks the conscience, “ says Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.
The public notice announcing the release provides no opportunity for public review or comment, nor does it seem to seek input from other state and federal environmental agencies who have legal obligations to review the project. (public notice can be found at http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pa/news.htm#public)
“The position that the Army Corps is not required to conduct an updated Environmental Impact Statement for the project is a clear violation of law; as is their assertion that they no longer need a valid Coastal Zone Consistency determination from the State of New Jersey,” asserts van Rossum. “The Army Corps is a federal agency and therefore has a heightened responsibility to comply with our country’s laws – if they refuse to fulfill this obligation by choice then we are fully prepared to force them through the courts” van Rossum emphasizes. ~
The ACoE ‘s “new” Assessment again, gives us no quantification of the benefits to Delaware’s economy, other than the beefing up at Broadkill and the wetlands, which I’ve already addressed, and the fact that 80% of the benefits of the project will go to 6 oil companies in PA remains unchanged.
Oh, Geek. I hate you. You are most definitely getting the deposits in your front yard. Who do I look like to you? UI? I’m no damned chemist!!!
I can’t believe an entire web site went up on that. Way too much time. Then I see it’s hosted by Agora…just like something else around here is. Connection??? I will say that when I saw the link to a certain show on that page, I immediately thought, “wtf…?” Damn you, Geek. I want the silt to be in your backyard, too…and force you to drive a Hummer that you have to fuel on your own. Bastard.
Just so you all know, reduce your risk of death and eat none of the fish you catch from the DE River/Bay. Have you not received your 2009 Fishing Guide yet, Maria. Check out page 48.
http://www.fw.delaware.gov/Fisheries/Documents/2009fishingguidewebfinal.pdf
This advisory hasn’t changed for years.
Yes — I read that Press Release too.
Not that anyone will be doing any regulating on that Press Release, but hey.
The Environmental Assessment, LG.
That DHMO site is just not right. Smitty is right that there are people in this world with way too much time on their hands.
But I am so getting some of the stuff from their store for this year’s Secret Santa exercise around the office!
I love the DHMO website!
The author of that site is a friend of mine, a professor and a former Hollywood writer. In other words, a ne’er do well.
…a friend of mine, a professor …
How does that even work in the same sentence for you? Impossible!
~ Not that anyone will be doing any regulating on that Press Release, but hey. ~
cass I’m not sure what your point is, but the bottom line is that the “new” EA in no way changes the number or amounts of identified toxins are going to be released all through the many years of dredging, the accumulated affects of which on our health and wildlife are unknown.
The DHMO site has DHMO Haz jars, with which I could cause much trouble for a real sampling event.
It is rumored that terrorists are plotting to use thin latex containers as a delivery mechanism for DHMO, possibly from a second-floor window or balcony. Plastic sheeting may serve as a defense.
If you get DHMO on your skin, wash thoroughly with water.