32 Responses to “UPDATED: DNREC’s Blatant Disregard For People, Aquatic Life And The Environment Leaves ME Speechless”

1. Pete Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 am

   Now here is a bold statement by Mr. Hastings.
   “If I tell you I’m disappointed…that’s an understatement.” I guess he never learned words like, outrageous, unconscionable, and immoral? Congratulations people of the 41st., you have a tiger on your hands there.

   And for DNREC to respond as they did totally clears the air why Blue Water Wind was shot down.

   From the DNREC web site. This statement from John Hughes.

   “I’m John Hughes, and I’m proud to serve you at the helm of DNREC. Our agency is mandated to protect and manage our state’s natural life support system – our air, water, wildlife, forests, parks, open spaces, wetlands and beaches – and to protect the health and safety of the people of Delaware.”

   Mission failed.

   Now is the time to demand that John Hughes resign.

2. Alan Muller Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am

   Thanks, Maria, for telling it like it was.

   And thanks to Rep. Hastings for attending.

   (One of DNREC’s manipulative techniques–I don’t know if they did it this time–is to hold private briefings for legislators to keep them away from hearings where they might hear some truth….)

   I’ve attended, I suppose, dozens of DNREC public hearings. If this was not the most disgraceful, it was near the top. But the attitudes towards permits and water pollution on display last night correctly reflected the State’s general policies. The Surface Water Discharges Section just doesn’t care about water pollution. Just doesn’t care… A key reason why 95 percent of Delaware waters are polluted by DNREC’s own standards.

   am

3. Maria Evans Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am

   For the record, I still can’t believe what I heard at that meeting.

4. commonsense Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm

   I guess I don’t get why you’re so upset. They have a permit that allows them to dump a certain amount of oil and whatnot. There are regulations that limit the amount of mouse feces in peanut butter. A certain amount is allowed, that’s just all there is to it. Your water can contain every carcinogen and poison right up to the allowable limits; there has to be a number applied to what is acceptable if you’re going to regulate anything. If you want that number to be “0″ then you will be paying way way more than you would ever be willing to pay for anything.

5. Frieda Berryhill Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm

   “I’m John Hughes, and I’m proud to serve you at the helm of DNREC. Our agency is mandated to protect and manage our state’s natural life support system – our air, water, wildlife, forests, parks, open spaces, wetlands and beaches – and to protect the health and safety of the people of Delaware.”……….I have attended only one DNREC meeting. I came to learn. What I learned was “that school is out ” That the figures are in, that the plant is killing people and nobody seemed to care. That was a year ago.
   Mr. Hughes , your “pride to serve ” is misplaced . How many more meetings does it take Mr. Hughes ? Are you waiting for miracle Mr. Hughes ? I could not attend another one of these meetings, my outrage exceeded my capacity to handle it.

6. Three-Eyed (dead) Fish, NRG, and DNREC - Happy Together | DelawarePolitics.net Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm

   [...] I don’t want to even attempt to steal Maria Evans’ thunder on this.  Read it and puke. [...]

7. Maria Evans Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm

   cs the IRPP sells their energy to the PJM grid. If they shut down tomorrow, our lights would still be on. The IRPP doesn’t operate like the proposed wind farm would, where the energy would go to Delaware first and the excess is sold to the grid, the IRPP’s energy goes right into the grid.

   As for what’s allowed, it seems that according to DNREC, pretty much anything goes for the IRPP. Stricter regulations and having to update their equipment to meet current pollution standards would raise their price to their customers, since those costs are always passed on to the consumer.

   And it’s very nice of you to worry about the energy bills for people living in the PJM grid’s Mid Atlantic area that serves 51 million people in 13 states. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to worry about the huge turd sandwich NRG is creating right here in Sussex County.

8. Perry Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm

   Right on Maria. Great reporting!!!

   Moreover, I wholeheartedly agree with your position on this NRG permit issue. I suppose no one has ever seriously questioned it in the past.

   Fortunately we have people like John Austin and Alan Muller now to ask the key questions, to confront the decisions of NRG and DNREC regarding enviromental impacts.

   Commonsense’s point about limits is well taken, that there cannot possibly be a zero. Therefore, the issue here is whether the limits placed upon NRG by the permit administered by DNREC are appropriate. It sounds as though they are not even close, and it sounds like DNREC has not done their homework. So the next question is why haven’t they?

   There may well be a funding and manpower issue with DNREC. Do they have sufficient numbers of appropriately trained employees to properly administer their responsibilities?

   We need some answers from the Governor and the Legislature!

9. Alan Muller Says:
   February 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm

   Commonsense isn’t showing a lot of awareness of the facts here.

   The oil and grease limit is intended to apply to discharges from a wastewater treatment plant.

   There shouldn’t be ANY oil added to “non-contact” cooling water, so applying that concentration limit to the total volume including “non-contact” cooling water gives a perverted result.

   DNRECs approach to writing these permits is to calculate what the maximum possible discharge could be without violating the extremely weak and generalized regulations, then write that into the permit.

   The Delaware City Refinery permit, using the same reasoning, allows a discharge of 38,000 pounds per day of oil and grease into the river.

   We’ve been complaining about this stuff for years, but not enough people have taken an interest to turn it around. Maybe that’s changing…..

   am

10. J Austin Says:
    February 22nd, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Maria’ reporting is now linked by many of the other Delaware Blogs.

    Unfortunately, this goes beyond DNREC’s current short funding and unfilled positions. The facility has been given a pass by each administration since 1992, and probably before. The Federal regulations are clear. DNREC’s obligation is to remedy the impaired waterways. What evidence that the facility used to argue there in no impact has been shown to be cooked data, just like the fish sucked in. DNREC either goes back to the drawing board - and get a real permit written that puts NRG on a schedule to build a new cooling tower, or they singoff on the current permit. There is a nasty medicine remedy if they ignore the facts —
    Section 505, 33 U.S.C. 1365.

11. Perry Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 am

    The unfortunate outcome, other than all that’s been said already about the environmental impacts due to NRG’s arrogance and DNREC’s neglect, is that the ratepayers and taxpayers will eventually be paying for the remedies. Am I correct John or Alan.

    PS: Alan, I would expect that even wastewater discharges from a treatment plant would have limits on grease and oil content. The same would be expected of a powerplant discharge. So I think commonsense’s remark is correct about it being impossible to have a limit of zero. Many people are unaware of this truth. I have found that limits are often set at the detection limits of an appropriate analytical test protocol, in order to provide the best protection possible.

12. Frank Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 am

    First let me say , that if the IRPP is in violation then they need to be brought into line. If there is no enforcement then that is a political problem. We keep sending back people to enforce these regulations who don’t.
    Now this may be slightly off topic but it has been mentioned earlier in this discussion that the wind project would be a benefit and some how solve this problem or at least reduce it. This is a false statement. The wind farm will reduce the problems at the IRPP by exactly “0″. They will still be producing the same amount of energy to be sold on the grid , putting out the same amount of discharge into the river, killing the same amount of fish .

    That is why some like myself have argued that a better project for the energy needs and the enviromental issues would have been to build a plant to replace the IRPP. With todays technology it could be built to be more efficient and cleaner . And then take the IRPP off line completly.

    Now let me try and answer the usual standard eco protest and smart ass remarks.

    First , yes let them build it on the west side of the county where I live, there is alot of open space and the Nanticoke River. Second it would mean one big project instead of multiple little ones which is what the wind farm and back up plant (GAS FIRED BY TH WAY) will mean, which would actually reduce the size of the foot print. The BWWP says it will create jobs , well I’m pretty sure that a large plant like IRPP employs quite a few people, so a new plant would employ many more than the 200 or so promised by BWW. Also with a large generation plant you would have more peripheral employment for the needs of running such a plant , such as vendors and suppliers of needed tools and equipment, even right down to such things as uniform suppliers, and cafateria staff.

    Now before Maria or anyone else starts in with the whole arguement about the bidding process that brought about the BWW decision, just let me say , that bidding process means nothing because it was agenda driven which had set goals that had nothing to do with solving our energy needs or to create jobs, it had strict guide lines that were bias against anything other than this kind of greeny, feel good boiler plate solutions.

    The people who propose such Pyrrhic sollutions care little about the true effect and cost that they will have on the people and the eviroment, they seem to be more interrested in punishing industry , istead of finding sollluttions that would be beneficial not only to the enviroment but also to the people.

    And by the way , if we are so concerned about fish being killed the let us out law fishing . Because even just one fish dieing is a tragedy.

13. Maria Evans Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 am

    I’ve said about a million times that the wind farm will not effect the IRPP, and it will not cost one DP&L employee a job. It’s a separate issue.

    The IRPP’s problem is that the State doesn’t enforce its own regulations, and the energy companies that have owned the plant will do basically anything to avoid spending one thin dime on doing anything to improve the pollution situation.

    Meanwhile they sell their energy to the Mid Atlantic grid, yes, for profit, and we in Sussex have to carry the entire load of their pollution, which limits the amount of fish we can eat while it effects our health.

    On top of that, the State has allowed their water discharge permit to expire 16 years ago, and the permit on the table now allows the plant to do basically anything and it won’t be in violation.

    Now, as a Sussex Countian, Frank, go out on the bay this summer without your new salt water fishing license and catch an illegally sized rockfish and see if you get away with it.

    Amazing, isn’t it? Everyone is so worried about a few extra cents in our electricity bills, while the state is hitting us with extra taxes, fees, permits, tolls and fines every year.

    Sorry, but I’m a little tired of getting screwed by the State. Anyone else?

14. Realist Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am

    Perhaps Delmarva Power could reallocate all the money they are spending on the intense ad campaign on WGMD blasting the wind power project to upgrade their technology.

15. Realist Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 am

    “….go out on the bay this summer without your new salt water fishing license and catch an illegally sized rockfish and see if you get away with it.”

    The saltwater fishing license would be in character with DNREC’s usual modus operandi. One can legally discharge a predetermined amount of pollutants into the environment, and obliterate predetermined amounts of flora and fauna, as long as you buy the correct permit from them.

16. Maria Evans Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am

    DP&L doesn’t own the plant anymore, Realist, NRG Energy, Inc. owns it now. Remember when the CEO of NRG wrote that sappy op-ed piece where he cried about how global warming is killing the earth and his company is a major contributor to that but that he can’t do anything about it without federal intervention? I wrote about it here:

    http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2007/10/15/nrgs-chief-executive-needs-a-carrot-and-stick/

    I can’t even begin to express my disbelief and disgust over this entire situation.

17. J Austin Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am

    First, let me say DNREC has failed to address federal regulations that apply to this facility, and EPA Region III has failed in its oversight. NRG has done nothing, but take form the community, as did DP&L before them.
    NRG could invest in a cooling tower for Unit 3. A few million dollars and part of the problem would be addressed. The plant would still be there, but the corporation is not going to invest if they do not have too. Rather than invest in pollution controls of units 1 and 2 they have decided to close the units in a sweet deal with DNREC that lets them pollute right up to the day they shut down.
    Permit effluent limitations are just that. The maximum amount that can be released by mass and concentration. In the case of the draft permit, the numbers bear no relation to what is actually being discharged, or represent any acceptable levels. To determine the numbers that should be there is a simple task. Pull all the discharge monitoring reports during normal operations, find the 99th percentile, and set the limit at that upper bound such that the facility is generally in compliance and ambient water quality standards are meet in the plants vicinity.
    Now the BWW angle. Unfortunately, the “clean coal” IGCC process was hype. The process is soooo.. inefficient that more coal has to be used to run the plant, than in the case of a normal coal plant with pollution controls. BWW project will provide power to SOS rate payers. Its 25% on average of projected power needs. Natural gas is up 10% this year, the cost of onshore wind is up 5%, and the cost of coal is also up 6-8% last time it checked. DPL knows offshore north will be followed by NJ east, and MD south. Best I can calculate, no BWW at 3% inflation the cost of renewable energy is going to be $5.88/month for 1000kwh user. That is IF DPL can find a fixed rate contract. PSC says BWW project additional costs at $6.49/month. I find it a bargain already. Consider hidden health costs and its a screaming bargain.
    Senator Carper recently wrote me saying -
    “Sixty-seven percent of sulfur dioxide emissions are particulate pollution that cause 24,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. Nitrous oxides also contribute to asthma attacks, which send thousands to the emergency room each year, and mercury pollution from power plants has resulted in 630,000 babies born each year with dangerous blood-mercury levels” So 68 premature deaths, and 1796 infants with high mercury levels which can cause neurological impairment are Delaware’s share. That’s just part of the hidden cost of NGR and Edgemoor.
    Makes a pollution tax to offset the cost of renewables something to ponder. First priority is to build 2×6 insulated walls in every new home, and have more renewable wind and solar power. Unfortunately, a few politicians here do not represent the public interest or offshore wind would be part of the solution already.
    Sorry - I think my longest post ever.

18. Alan Muller Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:14 am

    Folks, the Chair of NRG is Howard Cosgrove, the guy who worked with McDowell and others to engineer “dereg,” then left with a multi-million golden parachute. He now not only chairs NRG but the UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE–appointed by Minner to that position. He still lives in Delaware, but curiously enough he doesn’t return my calls….

    http://tinyurl.com/35xgjs

    Perry, would you take another look at Maria’s report? It is not a question of “zero.” The permit as written affirmatively gives NRG permission to add oil and grease to their non-contact cooling water. If you are going to defend this……

    The DNREC characters presenting the permit at that hearing were as pathetic as they come. I’d get rid of them if I were in charge. But they are paid to say stupid things and take the resulting abuse. Blaming them makes about as much sense as blaming bulldozers for inappropriate development.

    The responsibility for this situation, like most other mishandled regulatory matters lies much higher up the food chain.

    Overall, this doesn’t seem a major current issue for Green Delaware, as we don’t have the local support that would be needed…. I do hope others will persist with it. This plant has major negative impacts–air, water, land, aquatic populations, health…..

    am

19. Perry Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Alan, you missed my point about setting limits in permits, but I won’t belabor it further. Nevertheless, certainly I will not defend NRG for a second. As you, John and Marie have aptly demonstrated, NRG is about the worst excuse for a neighbor that we could possibly have, and our own legislature is equally to blame for this catastrophe to continue as it is, and for not hopping onto the BWW offering. This whole mess is too incredible to be true, yet that’s just exactly what it is, true!!!

20. Frank Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 5:48 am

    Ok sorry for taking this a little off topic with my last post. If people are upset about the condition of the IRPP, and want to see change , then they must stop focussing on NRG, and blaming them because they refuse to add cost to there bottom line. They are in the business of producing energy for profit.

    There are few companies out there who will add cost to there business that does not show some monitary return. This is what is known as good business.

    Also stop blaming DNREC , the last time I checked there is no elected position at DNREC.

    Now there are regulations in place to force NRG to comply. But this is not happening. Why? Because the people that keep being sent to Dover , for what ever reasons ignore or skirt the issue.

    This is why I say this is a political issue. If you want change , then stop voting for the same people over and over again because they fix the pot hole in front of your home. Or because they are a nice person, and they have been there forever.

    But be careful what you wish for. Because if you get your big government candidates in office and you get more regulation, don’t expect them to stop at just punishing “BIG ENERGY”, be ready when they begin to impact your everyday life. Now I know that some who post here would be very happy to see this happen . But if you think that these changes will happen without a huge cost to the consummer and the tax payers you are misleading yourself.

    If they could ever get IRPP under control , what next? Maybe like in CA. they would propose odd days for driving, or maybe like the low water toilets( that work oh so well!!) , or the mandated light bulbs (which have there own eco issues), maybe we could have thermostats that are factory set at “ACCEPTABLE” tempatures as determined by some government wonk, and a “CITIZENS” committee.Or better yet lets put a limit on the ammount of energy you are allowed to use, when you reach a certain kwh usage for the month then your meter automaticly shuts you off until the first of the month, because lets be honest here , its not the producers who are the problem , its the greedy consumers who refuse to cut back and will pay anything for the comfort they desire, the dirty bastards. What do they think this is a Capitalistic free society? The nerve of some people!!!!!!!

21. Maria Evans Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am

    Frank, DNREC is exactly who needs the first round of blame since their department sets the regulations and should be enforcing those regulations. The problem with DNREC right now is that their permit is so lax that NRG, as admitted by DNREC officials, could simply use the water discharge permit to dump oil and grease into our waterways.

    Legislators come next.

    NRG Energy has brought this on itself by 1) continuing to operate the state’s worst polluter, the Indian River Power Plant, without employing any of the available technology to improve its emissions and 2) by suing the state when it tries to implement regulations.

    Think about it Frank, Ford and GM aren’t making the same cars they did in the 1950’s, there were safety improvements and emissions improvements, and a lot of that was done voluntarily by automakers and in some cases automakers invented and implemented the upgrades, in other cases it was done by government regulation…but the bottom line is that’s what good companies do, they use the available technology to make sure the product that they offer is the best it can be…

    As for your “what’s next?” question…what slope is slipperier, the one that starts with regulating the state’s worst polluter, or the slope that doesn’t regulate the plant’s emissions? I say it’s the latter.

22. J Austin Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Now, Frank and I have very different views on regulation. I see some necessary for there to be good neighbors, but there are limits. Where I strongly agree is:

    “If you want change , then stop voting for the same people over and over again because they fix the pot hole in front of your home. Or because they are a nice person, and they have been there forever.”

    Step back, and ask why now after 16 year’s someone kicked the sleeping dog? Who was the Minner largest contributor and what was their affiliation? Could the answer be NRG? Will the next governor be as amenable? Will the likes of Hocker, Copeland, McDowell, Deluca, Adams and others continue to defend NRG and DPL/Conectiv’s interests? My broom sweeps both sides of the aisle.

    In this instance, its not state regulations in play. They are Federal regulations, and the place to seek relief is the US District Court who could can less about Delaware Good-ole-Boys.

23. Pat Gearity Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    I was pleased that Pete Schwartzkopf vowed yesterday (on your show, Maria) that he was going to get a meeting with John Hughes to explain why DNREC is refusing to enforce EPA regulations against NRG.

    I ask Pete to insist that this should be a public meeting, not some “behind the doors” secret conversation, that will be spun any which way by whoever needs to cover his or her butt.

    The days of closed door meetings about public health and safety should be over.

24. Alan Muller Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    For those with more interest:

    http://greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0516

    “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST RELATED TO COOLING TOWERS
    http://greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=coolingFOIAletter

    Alert 475: Environmental video censored by Minner administration
    http://greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0475

    Transcript of recent Indian River NPDES permit hearing:
    http://greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=NRGtranscript022108

25. Maria Evans Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Thanks, Alan, I may move some of this to the front page, and it’s nice to see you and John Austin on the blog.

26. Legalectric » Blog Archive » NRG in hiding at DNREC hearing Says:
    February 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    [...] MILLSBORO, DE — It was another one of those hearings where it was so absurd we had to laugh, either that or barf or be up in arms or all of the above.  January 21, 2008, a hearing was held regarding the water permit for the noxiously polluting NRG Indian River coal plant.  Here’s one news report: DNREC’s blatant disregard for people, aquatic life and the environment leaves ME speechless [...]

27. Nancy Feichtl Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Why One Gets Suspicious of Government in Delaware
    Last week, Feb. 21, there was a public hearing in Millsboro related to extending the permission for NRG to continue to pollute our waters beyond the federal EPA guidelines by allowing them to wait until a later date, maybe five years hence, to build cooling towers and make the waters less lethal to fish….by millions a year.
    I won’t go into detail about how the public had to request the hearing, how answers from the presenters were sadly absurd, that participants were given the wrong address for the hearing (at least they did not move it to another site, as is the common ploy of DNREC hearings,) and that they intend to let NRG design and implement the “studies” that will determine how they regulate in the future, etc. No I will not go into those absurd details.
    The thing I question is why grant a permit now? They have allowed NRG to do whatever it wanted to our waters for sixteen years without readdressing its compliance and need for update of the mechanism of permit. So all of a sudden, DNREC attempts to extend formal permission, relatively cloaked from the public for another five years. Wouldn’t that make it impossible for the next Governor, no matter who it is, to have no power to stop the pollution until the permit expires? Isn’t it suspicious that the major contributor to the current administration was the power conglomerate?
    In my musings, it occurs to me that the citizens of Delaware are again disregarded for the interests of the cartel, i.e. NRG/ Delmarva Power/Pepco Holdings. Where is DNREC in all this? Wasn’t that department designed to protect you and me? Maybe this is beyond the politics of Delaware and we should move this whole thing to Federal Court….just my musings.

28. Frank Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 5:06 am

    Maria , again you blame NRG for suing to avoid adding cost to their operations. Tell me is this not the system? Are they doing anything ilegal?
    We may not like it , but it is the system you should be working to change.

    DNREC , is a dog on the leash of the governor, and Leg. Hall. The head of which is appointed and confirmed. So I believe can be removed.

    Your auto maker example only takes you to the point where you say “a lot of that was done voluntarily”, so you are mad because NRG chooses not to “VOLUNTARILY” , do what you would like them to do?

    So like J Austin says take them to District Court, but quit whining about how they are not good neighbors, the fact is that that plant has been there for many , many years, and while there are a few residents who may have lived around it for their entire lives, most chose to move here.

    If I move next to a chicken house do I have the right to complain about the smell? If people are so concerned about their health risk from an area they chose to move into , then maybe they should move to Montana, but I hear that they use a lot of coal out there.

29. Maria Evans Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 6:21 am

    Why, Frank, are you arguing the point that NRG should be allowed to pollute freely? Every business is regulated by the government, and if the local service station can’t dump their waste oil into the bay, why should NRG be allowed to?

    And this attitude that if you move here, you should shut up about pollutants that are PROVED TO CAUSE CANCER is ridiculous. Every citizen of Delaware has rights, too.

    On Rush’s show yesterday, some idiot from Wilmington was whining about leaving the energy companies in Delaware alone. He went on about technology and the wonderful entrepreneurial spirit and innovation of the industry. And that is perfectly correct, unfortunately NRG Energy doesn’t employ innovation or new technology at Indian River, they fight to keep it operating the way it did in the 50’s 60’s 70’s and 80’s. And their entrepreneurial spirit doesn’t go beyond figuring out new ways to scuttle compliance with state regulations.

    Capitalism and free enterprise are wonderful, but there is no reason that NRG should be allowed to pollute freely into waters that they’ve already “impaired” according to DNREC. I’d find some other company to carry water for, Frank.

    And Frank, I am working to change the system. Don’t think I’m going to let DNREC off the hook.

30. Frank Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    The point I keep making but it seems to escape everyones attention is that NRG is “ALLOWED ” to not comply. Where is the enforcement?

    Where are our legislators? Why are they not screaming about this? Why is DNREC issuing “ANY” permit to a non compliant company? Your anger and that of many is misdirected and wasted by focasing on NRG. We know that they are non compliant , we know they choose to fight instead of fixing the problem. Are we to believe that if we keep repeating the montra of ” If they were good neighbors they would fix the problem” , that they will suddenly see the light?

    Our legislators allow NRG to blackmail us by thinking that the government will never dare to shut them down. Well maybe the government should call their bluff. But we know this won’t happen because of the amount of money pumped into campaigns of both parties.

    If the secretary of DNREC had any guts or concerns for the state and county he would refuse all , I repeat all future applications for permits until NRG became compliant. And if the Governor and or the Legislature had any they would remove Mr. Hughes if he fails to act in this manner.

    Now that being said , we have tried this failure of a method of forcing NRG to comply, so maybe its time to try another way.

    We see everyday the government offering tax credits and subsidies to companies to develope new technology or to improve old. We see alternative fuels being offered every break under the sun . So why not reward NRG for putting in the new technology to clean up the problem? And or subsidize the project . I prefer the former to the latter. But each time this is proposed it gets shouted down because it is not seen as punishing them, which while maybe not your reason, it does seem to be the motive of some.

31. Talk of Delmarva » Blog Archive » DNREC UPDATE Says:
    February 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    [...] Recently at a public hearing we learned that the Delaware Department of Natural Resources hands out permits that are, shall we say, “lax.” [...]

32. don Says:
    April 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Hey Maria,

    I would like to pass this story onto the News Director here at WMDT 47 so we might do a follow up. Would this be alright with you?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.