Letter to Bob Martin, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Exxon Mobil Settlement

Letter

Bob Martin, Commissioner

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State St.
7th Floor, East Wing
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

Dear Commissioner Martin,

I write to express my serious concerns regarding the State of New Jersey's proposed settlement with Exxon Mobil Corporation for the severe contamination of the Bayway and Bayonne refineries, and other industrial sites in New Jersey owned by Exxon. I urge you to reject this settlement because it falls short of what is needed to fully compensate our state for the extensive environmental contamination caused at these sites.

This contamination impacts a large swath of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, an area that was once immensely ecologically vibrant but which has been impacted by centuries of industrialization, including the contamination discussed herein, which has degraded the environmental conditions of this estuary.[1] I was sent to Congress in 1988 to put a stop to ocean dumping and the reckless industrialization of the Jersey Shore. Ensuring the ecological vitality of New Jersey's coastline and waterways has always been one of my top priorities. This insufficient settlement is an affront to the long term objective of cleaning up New Jersey's legacy of toxic contamination.

Beginning in 2004, during the tenure of former Governor Jim McGreevey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) filed a lawsuit against Exxon alleging serious damage done to wetlands and natural resources at the company's Bayway and Bayonne refineries.[2] This litigation has continued through the tenure of four governors since 2004 and the State of New Jersey has expended significant resources to the effort to recover natural resource damages from Exxon to obtain what is rightfully owed to the state to recover from and repair this environmental damage.

The sprawling contamination that exists at these sites is an environmental and public health hazard of extreme concern. Over the course of more than 100 years, this land, the surrounding water, and groundwater have all been contaminated, and the environmental impacts are substantial.

In its 2006 report on the natural resource damages at the two refinery sites, Stratus Consulting notes:

Chemical wastes, including spilled products, effluents, and sludges, were generally routed into low-lying wetland areas adjacent to refinery operations. Dredge fill areas and landfills were constructed without liners, so contaminants disposed in these areas have leaked into surrounding groundwater, soils, wetlands, and surface water… Spills, discharges, leaks, and landfilling with waste and dredge material, in combination with transport of contaminants via groundwater and surface water pathways, have effectively spread contamination throughout the refinery properties.[3

The contaminated area not only poses a public health risk to humans, but also to the hundreds of species of fish and birds that call it home. This includes seasonal or year-round populations of 178 species of special emphasis, including 37 species of fish and 128 species of birds, and many federally and state-listed species of concern.[4] Of these 128 species of birds, major nesting colonies and foraging areas exist for herons, egrets, and ibises.[5] This contamination must be properly cleaned up to protect the wildlife in our region.

I am also seriously concerned about the potential that only a small percentage of this paltry settlement will be used for clean-up and remediation of the environmental damage at these sites. Only the first $50 million of environmental damage settlements is required to be set aside for cleanup and remediation. Not only is this $225 million settlement insufficient, allocating only $50 million of the settlement to address the contamination is unacceptable. It is disappointing that Governor Christie recently vetoed legislation in New Jersey to require money from these settlements to go to clean up the damage.[6]

What is even more frustrating is the potential for Exxon to write off a large portion of the already inadequate settlement costs the company -- number two on Fortune Magazine's 2014 list of the 500 highest grossing companies -- will incur under this deal. The tax deduction for business expenses is broad and can apply to most settlements. In fact, Exxon's $1.1 billion settlement after the Exxon Valdez oil spill had an after-tax burden of only $524 million.[7] This means Exxon could have an after-tax burden that is far less than the already miniscule settlement amount of $225 million.

The settlement also includes liability protections for sixteen other Exxon facilities in the state where contamination has occurred that were not included in the original litigation, three of which are in my Congressional District. Some of these facilities are in environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to navigable waterways. So, not only is this a bad deal for cleanup of the Bayway and Bayonne refinery sites, it could impede cleanups at other sites that were not initially part of the lawsuit. As part of this deal, Exxon will not pay any natural resource damages for any of the additional 16 facilities listed in the settlement. I am extremely troubled by your decision not to disclose the details of the environmental damage at these additional sites.[8] The public deserves to know what contamination exists at these sites and what resources will be needed to clean up and remediate environmental damages therein.

I urge you to reject this insufficient settlement with ExxonMobil that will not provide the necessary financial resources to clean up and restore this comprehensive environmental damage. Our state has fought for over a decade to hold Exxon accountable for this contamination -- we cannot accept a deal that shortchanges our fight to protect our environment.

Sincerely,

FRANK PALLONE, JR.

Member of Congress

Source