WolfeNotes.com

The Paterson air toxics study saga is nearly over. For recent context, please see:

DEP Suppressing Study That Shows Breathing Air in Paterson is Hazardous to Your Health

DEP Finds Unusual Toxic Chemical in Air in Chester

EJAC 2009 Report: Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities-March 2009

Commissioner Mark N. Mauriello’s July 2009 Response to the Environmental Justice Advisory Council’s March 2009 Report: “Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities”

Below press release from PEER

NEW JERSEY DOWNPLAYS DISTURBING AIR TOXICS STUDY
DEP Mounts Messaging Campaign to Minimize Risk Findings in Paterson

Trenton – A groundbreaking but long-delayed study of toxic air pollution in Paterson, New Jersey is finally being released this week with an elaborate state public relations roll-out designed to convince people that it contains nothing new, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  Yet the draft of the study indicates that there are significantly increased health risks to residents from breathing ambient levels of numerous hazardous air pollutants.

The $736,266.00 study, titled “Urban Community Air Toxics Monitoring Project, Paterson City, NJ” was initiated in October 2004 and is three years behind schedule.  The study finds the “combined cancer risk” from exposure to toxic chemicals at the high end of what the U.S. EPA considers acceptable risk, and over 700 times higher than New Jersey’s cancer risk standard of one in a million.  However, the DEP-prepared “Citizens Guide” for the study does not even mention combined cancer risks even though they are a central focus of the study and at the forefront of environmental justice concerns.

Rather than highlight the meaning and significance of monitoring data, a four-page “Communication Strategy” by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) appears crafted to deflect questions with misleading conclusions not found in the study itself, such as:

• “There is no immediate public health concern” – a conclusion that ignores evidence of significant long-term and cumulative effects;
• “The air quality in Paterson is consistent with that of the entire state” – a vague statement that ignores many specific findings such as chlorine levels in Paterson more than 100 times higher than EPA national model estimates; and
• “The cancer risk [for p-dichlorobenzene, one of 132 toxics measured] calculated at the one site in Paterson where the elevated concentrations occurred would be 205 in a million” while neglecting to mention that this is more than 200 times the one in a million cancer risk guideline used by DEP and that even higher cancer risks were found at other monitoring sites

“DEP seems to be spending more time and money on political science than environmental science,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst, noting that the agency is withholding more than 100 documents concerning why the final report was delayed and how it was edited.  “The study’s peer-reviewed data and conclusions were being presented months ago at technical conferences but not shared with the Paterson community until now.”

The DEP Communication Strategy spells out “messages” to assuage “concerned stakeholder groups” (public officials, environmentalists and community organizations).  The memo also declares that Paterson was chosen for the study “NOT because of observed or suspected air quality problems.”  In fact, the study author states that Paterson was selected because it has a hospitalization rate for asthma three times the state average and more than one in five 3rd graders have asthma or a related health problem.  Previous studies associate toxic air pollution with asthma.  In addition, Paterson is a racially mixed, relatively poor city meeting the DEP criteria for an “environmental justice community” that suffers from disproportionate pollution.

“The reason for this study was to find out where the pollution is coming from and to reduce it through tougher permitting or enforcement actions to promote environmental justice and public health.  But instead of vigorous enforcement, DEP is treating like it is some unimportant academic exercise,” Wolfe added.  “Did taxpayers get their money’s worth for this study or will it just take up space on a shelf?”

###

Read DEP Communications Strategy memo

Look at the summary draft Paterson toxics study (text available upon request)

See the draft DEP Citizens Guide (with staff edits)

Review the DEP penchant for suppressing and altering scientific studies

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability.

Martin Brags: “I’m No Greenie” – Retired corporate executive has zero environmental experience but supports cost/benefit analysis, “regulatory relief“, and “customer friendly” “culture” change at DEP

For the handful of political/media junkies and environmental zealots out there who would rather read the news than party on Superbowl Sunday, the Star Ledger reports today that Christie’s nominee to head DEP, Bob Martin, has spoken. (See: N.J. Department of Environmental Protection nominee outlines plans for embattled agency

Exactly one week ago, the Bergen Record reported that Mr. Martin explicitly refused interviews until after his Senate confirmation – to his credit, I guess Martin realized his mistake:

The man who will carry out Christie’s vision, acting DEP Commissioner Bob Martin, is declining all interview requests until after his appointment is confirmed by the legislature.

The Star Ledger interview wasn’t groundbreaking Katie Couric/Sarah Palin kind of stuff  – although, like Palin, who confused her proximity to the Russian border with foreign policy experience, Bob Martin seemed to confuse seeing a pond and a stream near his home with protecting water quality (e.g. the Christie DEP Transition Report calls for slashing stream buffers). But overall, Mr. Martin presented a more sophisticated form of cluelessness and he did a better job masking his policy agenda.

Because I’ve been harshly critical of his refusal – thus far – to talk to the press (see: “Christie DEP Nomine Fails First Test“) I figured I’d clarify the situation and thank him for finally talking to press, while providing an assessment of his remarks.

It is far from clear what Martin means when he says that he is “committed“ to environmental protection and “very conscientious,” if equally pragmatic, about protecting New Jersey’s natural resources.”

But gosh, he recycles and his lawn care serfs (ahem, I meant contractors) don’t use pesticides at his McMansion, so he must be a moderate, right?

“At the stately Hopewell Township home he shares with his wife, Brenda, and three children, ages 12, 21 and 24, Martin said energy use is carefully monitored, recycling is a daily practice and lawn pesticides are prohibited.”

Right out of the box, Bob, who has no environmental training or experience, admits he’s sort of baffled by how he wound up at DEP:

“I never anticipated being at the DEP. … I thought I’d probably end up at the BPU (Board of Public Utilities) since I had dealt with utilities at Accenture,” Martin said.

Perhaps by the term “dealt with“, Martin means “privatized” the public utilities? Maybe the Senate will ask for clarification.

Bob plows right on and lowers expectations by obliviously trumpeting his lack of qualifications. It is disturbing that Martin conflates his lack of professional environmental qualifications with a disparaging label: “greenie”:

“Bob Martin will be the first to say he’s “not a big greenie.“

No kidding. But hey, cut him a break. I bet some of Bob’s best friends are “greenies”

So now that we know who Bob is and how “committed” he is, let’s look at the issues and assess Bob’s response to Star Ledger questions (I left out the Bear hunt question):

Q. What will be the DEP’s priorities under your watch?

I appreciated Martin’s support of more transparency at DEP, which is something we have been working hard on for some time (see this and “This is Why we Need Transparency at DEP“).  But I don’t know what “fixing the regulatory process” and “changing the DEP culture” mean. I’ve written about the Christie Executive Orders, so if that’s what Bob means about “fixing the regulatory process,” we’re in for a long fight. I strongly disagree with Martin’s premise that DEP culture should reflect free market transactional values and treat people and the regulated community (AKA polluters)  as “customers”. The remainder of Martin’s response is so vague and non-committal as to be worthless.

Q. Will you use the transition team report as a blueprint?

The DEP Transition Report is an all out assault on both DEP as an institution and environmental regulatory protections. The Report has come under harsh criticism. The fact that Martin chose not to distance himself from its recommendations is a very bad sign.

Q. Gov. Christie wants to make the DEP more business-friendly, which environmental groups claim is “code” for setting back clean water and land use regulations. How will you balance the two?

I like Martin’s emphasis on transparency and science, and his pledge to have an open door policy (I will take him up on that offer and see if I can get a meeting!). But his emphasis on the “customer” ethic and cost benefit analysis are bad policy. There was no need to talk about any “code”. This was the time to ask Martin about the Christie Executive Orders which are designed to rollback regulations. Why wasn’t that question asked?

Q. The Corzine administration ordered the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station to install eco-friendly cooling towers rather than cool its operations with water pumped from Barnegat Bay. Oyster Creek said the order will force the plant to close because of the cost. What will you do?

Context (see: “Christie Backpedaling on commitment to Oyster Creek cooling towers“): The US Supreme Court in April issued a huge decision that requires that EPA cooling tower regulations consider cost/benefit analysis. Oyster Creek owner Exelon claims towers are not justified by cost/benefit analysis. Martin supports cost/benefit analysis. Christie Executive Order #2 mandates cost/benefit analysis and requires that NJ State regulatory polices be consistent with minimum federal rules. In December, DEP issued a draft permit mandating cooling towers, a decision that is more stringent than EPA federal requirements and did not consider cost/benefit analysis. The final decision is in Martin’s hands. Connect the dots.

Christie “promised” during the campaign to support cooling towers at Oyster Creek. This was one of the primary reason Christie was endorsed by the NJ Environmental Federation. Martin’s failure to support this commitment constitutes a retreat and betrayal. Martin’s claim that other causes of Barnegat Bay decline must be considered as part of the cooling tower decision contradicts the Clean Water Act and parrots the testimony of plant operator Exelon. Martin’s remarks about jobs are cover for Exelon’s profits, because far more jobs and lower cost energy are provided by energy efficiency and renewable energy (solar and wind). Here’s what I wrote on Nov. 27,2009 this issue:

“BEFORE the election, I received the below “Vote Christie”  statement from the NJ Environmental Federation.

Note the deceptively parsed language alleging a contrast with Corzine on installation of cooling towers at Oyster Creek nuclear power plant to protect Barnegat Bay:

On Election Day Vote Environment-Vote Chris Christie

Contrary to Corzine, Christie has committed to the following as you already know:
• Increasing protections for our most vulnerable and important waterways through the state’s Category 1 program;
• Replenishing the state’s bankrupt open space program;
• Requiring the state’s nuclear plants to stop their destruction in and around Barnegat Bay and the Delaware River;
• Opposing the proposed coal plant in Linden; and
• Issuing an executive order to reduce killer diesel soot pollution.

Noting a lot of ambiguity and unsure of what NJEF meant by the weasel words “stop their destruction“, I went over to the Christie web page and – curiously – found a much clearer commitment with respect to the Oyster Creek cooling tower issue. Christie strongly implied a promise to install cooling towers, although the word smithing still gave him an out on the basis of “putting the taxpayers on the hook”. Regardless, one still must ask: why would a candidate – a person expected to hedge on controversial issues – express a clearer commitment than an environmental group?

Here’s what Christie promised on cooling towers:

Restoring the Delaware and Barnegat BayI will make it a priority to identify and implement strategies for better cooling systems at Oyster Creek and Salem. We cannot ignore this issue. I will not. There has to be a better way to cool Oyster Creek and Salem without putting – New Jersey taxpayers on the hook, and we will do it.

Q. Corzine left office before confirming the appointment of a dozen scientists, from academia and private industry, to a new Science Advisory Board created to offer the DEP some outside expertise. Critics claim it will second-guess staff scientists on pollution standards. What are your plans?

I am deeply troubled that Martin supports scientists that work for Dupont and other private sector environmental consultants as members of the newly created Science Advisory Board. They are DEP regulated entities, have clear scientific bias, and economic conflicts of interest that will undermine the objectivity and independence of the SAB (see: “Today, DEP Appoints New Science Board Stacked with NJ’s Most Polluting Industry Representatives”

We hope Martin faces tougher questions during Senate confirmation hearings, that he provides more detailed fact based answers, and that he makes formal commitments to specific policy.

In his first hour in Office, Governor Christie issued a series of sweeping Executive Orders.

Although reported favorably in the press as a benign and policy neutral effort to impose a 90 day “time out” and form a “Red Tape Review Commission” to review State regulations to promote economic development, the Orders are not policy neutral and represent a radical departure from NJ’s policy, legal, and political traditions.

They consolidate enormous regulatory power in the newly created Lt. Governor’s Office, which raises constitutional separation of powers issues between the Governor and the Legislature (and are the Lt. Governor’s decisions to suspend rules subject to judicial review? If so, on what kind of administrative record?). Perhaps even more significantly, the Orders fundamentally change the process, standards, and criteria for adopting regulations. The Lt. Governor is given powers to work behind closed doors and block regulations  in a way that is sharply at odds with the due process, transparency, and public participation requirements of NJ’s Administrative Procedures Act. This unaccountable power literally invites abuse by private interests. The Lt. Governor is given powers to change decision standards and gut laws enacted by the Legislature that delegate powers to State Departments, like DEP, to protect the public’s interest in the environment, not necessarily promote the narrow private business interests of friends of the Governor.

I will focus on Executive Orders #1 and #2 to elucidate how they pose an unprecedented and enormous threat to public health and environmental protections that, according to a recent poll, are strongly supported by 79% of NJ residents.

Governor Christie has created a Regulatory Czar in the Lt. Governor’s Office. Ironically, very similar moves under the Obama Administration have drawn sharp public criticism (and at least Obama Czar Cass Sunstein is a serious legal scholar well versed in regulatory policy, while Guadagno is a local Sheriff with no regulatory experience).

According to Time magazine:

Why Obama’s Regulatory Czar Makes Liberals Nervous (click)

Cass Sunstein would not seem the kind of presidential appointee to get liberal groups up in arms. A professor at the University of Chicago Law School (and this year a visiting professor at Harvard) and prolific author, Sunstein is a reliable liberal on most questions of law and policy. So when President Barack Obama chose his old friend for a very powerful Washington job, director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), it seemed safe to assume that the appointment would be treated as good news by the environmental, labor and consumer groups that have been in despair for most of the Bush years.

The reaction, however, was much more muted. Since Sunstein is expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate, few people are willing to go public with criticisms. But “extremely disappointed” is how one person describes the general reaction among liberal advocacy groups at the prospect of Sunstein becoming what many call the “regulatory czar.”

The reason is Sunstein’s support for cost-benefit analysis, the practice of examining regulations to ensure that their benefit to society outweighs whatever costs they impose. Liberal advocacy groups claim that cost-benefit analysis has been a weapon that every Republican President since Ronald Reagan — who created OIRA — has used to thwart effective government regulation of the environment, workplace and consumer safety. OIRA, after all, examines all proposed federal regulations before they take effect — be they issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — and it has the power to delay or reject the ones it believes will be too costly to impose. “Every time the agencies come out with a regulation that’s controversial, OIRA tries to stop it,” says Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, which in January issued a report critical of Sunstein’s support for cost-benefit analysis. “And their main tool is cost-benefit analysis.“

Just like the Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, NJ environmental groups are unwilling to go public with criticisms.

And just like the Czar-like powers Sunstein will wield in OIRA, Section 5 of NJ Governor Christie’s EO #1 provides

No later than 10 days after the effective date of this Executive Order, the head of each State agency shall transmit to the Lieutenant Governor:

a. Notification of any proposed administrative regulation or rule that should be suspended in addition to the proposed administrative rules set forth in Section 1 of this Executive Order. The Lieutenant Governor may, following such notification, suspend the proposed administrative regulation and rule;

In concert with EO #1’s Regulatory Czar powers to suspend, delay, weaken and even veto regulations behind the scenes with no public process, transparency, or accountability, Christie’s EO #2 also explicitly seeks regulatory relief by mandating cost benefit analysis. Specifically, Section 1 of EO 2 provides

1. For immediate relief from regulatory burdens, State agencies shall:

[a.-c.]

d. Employ the use of cost/benefit analyses, as well as scientific and economic research from other jurisdictions, including but not limited to the federal government when conducting an economic impact analysis on a proposed rule.

Cost benefit analysis is a flawed, controversial and ethically repugnant tool – here’s just one example from the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives:

Last February, in a legislative proposal to reduce power plant emissions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested that the economic value of saving the elderly from early death caused by air pollution was less than that of saving healthy adults. Two cost-benefit analyses for the rule, known as the Clear Skies initiative, were presented by the agency. A base analysis without the so-called “senior discount” yielded benefits of $93 billion. But an alternative analysis in which this age-adjusted factor was applied produced a much lower benefit of just $11 billion, barely twice the cost of the program. According to Reece Rushing, a policy analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based public interest group OMB Watch, health-protective regulations may not be adopted if benefits appear low relative to cost.

The backlash against the senior discount was swift and severe. Advocacy groups, religious organizations, and critics including former EPA administrator Carol M. Browner blasted the agency, charging that it had undervalued aging Americans in its benefits calculations.

Under fire, the EPA withdrew the alternative analysis in May. But while the senior discount may have been shelved for now, cost-benefit analysis for environmental rule making under the Bush administration remains controversial.

At the core of this issue is the growing influence of the White House office with responsibility for cost-benefit review: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Traditionally, OIRA has had fairly minimal interactions with submitting agencies as they prepare cost-benefit analyses. But under its current administrator, John Graham, OIRA has become intimately involved in all aspects of the cost-benefit process.

Or see this from OMB Watch (there is a huge literature critiquing CBA – just Google)

But, in addition to seeking to gut regulations by use of cost benefit analysis, Christie goes even further to weaken and dismantle NJ State regulations. EO #2 mandates that future NJ rules be rolled back to minimum federal standards.  Because existing rules sunset on a 5 year schedule, the new federal standards policy effectively applies to all rules.

This is extremely poor policy. Historically, NJ State regulations have been significantly more stringent and protective than federal minimums. More stringent protections are made necessary by NJ’s tremendous environmental challenges and chemical/industrial legacy.

The environmental indicators that justify far more stringent NJ state level protections are uniformly dire.

NJ is the nation’s most densely populated state with the most cars, most development, most pavement and most toxic pollutants per square mile. NJ’s precious shore is highly over-developed and vulnerable to storms and sea level rise. Yet we continue to lose more than 15,000 acres of forests, farms, and wetlands per year to new development. Racially and economical segregated communities bear unjust disproportionate pollution and health burdens.  Contradicting lots of empty political rhetoric about reducing emissions, NJ’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise steeply. NJ has the most toxic Superfund sites and more than 20,000 other toxic sites. Communities are threatened by at least 15 chemical facilities, where an accident or terror attack could kill more than 100,000 residents. In NJ, more than 65% of streams and rivers and 100% of lakes fail to meet water pollution standards and lack cleanup plans. Statewide Fish Consumption Advisories warn that fish and shellfish are too toxic to eat. Over 12% of residential water wells fail health standards. The entire state does not meet health based standards for air pollutants ozone, fine particulates, and numerous cancer causing toxic chemicals; and not surprisingly NJ has the nation’s highest cancer and asthma rates.

Despite these overwhelming challenges that have justified and dictate stricter NJ state regulations, Christie has quietly reversed 30 years of NJ’s environmental leadership in one paragraph in EO #2, which provides that each state agency (i.e. DEP) shall:

2. e. Detail and justify every instance where a proposed rule exceeds the requirements of federal law or regulation. State agencies shall, when promulgating proposed rules, not exceed the requirements of federal law except when required by State statute or in such circumstances where exceeding the requirements of federal law or regulation is necessary in order to achieve a New Jersey specific public policy goal. [...]

3.b. Adopt federally promulgated rules as written, unless separate State rules are permitted and appropriate to achieve a New Jersey specific public policy goal.

These restrictions provide new and effective procedural opportunities and substantive criteria for builders, developers, and industry to challenge and attack any DEP regulations, while at the same time will make it very difficult if not impossible for DEP to justify necessary regulatory protections.

We hope the NJ environmental community and the media get engaged and cover this highly significant and newsworthy issue.

And we hope that Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans ask some tough questions of Bob Martin, Christie’s nominee for DEP Commissioner, during upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.

Mr. Martin has publicly supported cost benefit analysis, but said virtually nothing else about the environment. Martin is refusing press interviews, thus making it impossible to query his qualifications for the job. [Update: 2/7/10 2:245 am – Scott Olso just sent me this, so Mr. Martin has spoken: N.J. Department of Environmental Protection nominee outlines plans for embattled agency. Gee whiz, and the Star Ledger posts it up at 9pm before Superbowl Sunday!

We will keep you posted as things develop.

Discussion about economic competition with our Pennsylvania neighbors invariably devolves into the mindless corporate talking points: NJ must become more business friendly by cutting taxes and environmental regulations in order to compete. (See: “The Dystopia Conservatives Built”:

Choosing life, by contrast, means doing what Colorado’s governor and state legislature are doing by temporarily suspending corporate tax exemptions and raising revenue for job-sustaining schools and infrastructure. Even more dramatically, it means doing what voters in Oregon did last week.

As deficits threatened their education and public health systems, Oregonians confronted two ballot initiatives—one modestly raising taxes on annual income above $250,000, another hiking the state’s $10 minimum corporate income tax.

Despite these measures exempting 97 percent of taxpayers, conservatives waged a vicious opposition campaign, trotting out billionaire Nike CEO Phil Knight as their celebrity spokesperson. But this time, the right’s greed-is-good mantra failed. In a swing state that had killed every similar initiative since the 1930s, voters backed the tax increases—and chose economic life.

So, if we buy the corporate line, how is it that our Pennsylvania neighbors in Philadelphia are going in the right direction, by imposing stiff fees on stormwater pollution?

That’s a wonderful Pennsylvania idea NJ should compete with and embrace – and not only for stormwater, but for consumption of drinking water (S457) as well – and most importantly, for carbon to address global warming.

As superbly reported by Sandy Bauers in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer (here’s the intro, but click on headline and please read the whole story). :

A “green” city plan to reduce stormwater runoff

By Sandy Bauers

Inquirer Staff Writer

Storm water is nasty and dirty and can cause flooding. So the sooner it gets off a property, the better.

But it’s about to become valuable stuff in Philadelphia. Businesses can make money by embracing it. Or face losing money if they let it go.

This week, the Water Department is sending notices to 79,000 commercial customers about a new billing structure for storm water that will begin in July.

Over 450 homes in Pompton Lakes NJ were poisoned by toxic chemical vapors from groundwater pollution from the Dupont site (see this and this on cancer cluster). The problem is known as “vapor intrusion” (VI) and it is a huge statewide issue at hundreds of toxic sites and old landfills (for examples: see this on VI facts; and this for VI at Middlesex Boro Daycare; and this and this for VI at Atlantic Highlands Elementary School; and this for Frankling Township (Warren Co.) Elementary  School VI; and this VI at  homes on Kings Path in Hopewell; and (this HVN; 9/21/06) for these Hopewell Boro VI problems right in DEP Acting Commissioner Bob Martin’s backyard). Below is an explanation from PEER on how DEP recently abandoned August 2009 improvements to the DEP VI program due to industry opposition – and how the Christie administration is now considering elimination of VI requirements.

NEW JERSEY CLOSING ITS NOSE TO VAPOR INTRUSION CRISIS — Vapor Intrusion Rules Cast into Regulatory Limbo as Horror Stories Multiply

Trenton — Rules seeking to accelerate indoor air sampling and provide more rapid response to toxic vapors seeping into homes, day-care centers and other buildings were recently set aside by New Jersey authorities and the new administration of Governor Chris Christie has pledged to kill them altogether, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). This regulatory gap occurs as new evidence shows even more widespread contamination of groundwater and soil than previously thought and as the state moves to pick up the pace of “brownfields” redevelopment of contaminated sites.

Toxic vapor intrusion occurs as contaminants in soil or groundwater emit vapors that enter structures, typically through basements, sickening residents. As widely reported, volatile organic chemical vapors from a century-old DuPont factory have endangered over 450 homes and thousands of residents in Pompton Lakes. Residents there were outraged to learn that the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and DuPont took years to notify them of the problem and test the air in their homes.

New Jersey is one of the nation’s most contaminated states yet it still has failed to restrict high-density construction atop hundreds of underground toxic plumes. Under governors of both parties, New Jersey has pushed for quick and cheap redevelopment by merely capping contaminated plumes under old industrial sites, a practice call “pave-and-wave.” As a result, the state has been buffeted by a steady stream of lurid eco-horror stories as the chemical fumes ultimately surface.

The agency began to come to grips with the indoor exposure danger and in 2005 adopted a “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” document. That document was based on a “phased approach” – a laborious but voluntary 10-stage process in which extensive groundwater and soil sampling was required before indoor air was sampled. Huge loopholes in that guidance were exposed by the Kiddie Kollege tragedy in 2006 where 60 toddlers were poisoned by mercury vapors in a day-care center located in a contaminated former thermometer factory. It took DEP over 14 weeks to notify parents of the exposure.

Kiddie Kollege led to changes in law and DEP vapor intrusion policy. In August 2009, DEP adopted “Vapor Intrusion Guidance” revisions to speed up indoor air sampling where “sensitive receptors” were involved (day-care centers, schools, homes). Even this halting step has been reversed, however:

• On November 17, 2009, DEP withdrew its August guidance on vapor intrusion, returning to the flawed phased approach which leads to the extensive delays seen in Pompton Lakes; and
• The Christie administration Transition Report on DEP went even further, stating that vapor intrusion rules are not legally required under the Site Remediation and Reform Act and DEP should limit its rules only to cover “required elements.” If implemented, this stance would essentially repeal official Vapor Intrusion Guidance.

“New Jersey appears to be burying its head in contaminated sand,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst. “There are hundreds of contaminated groundwater cases that may be poisoning indoor air in Garden State homes, schools and day-care centers. To avoid years of delay in sampling groundwater and soil, DEP must mandate more rapid indoor air sampling and abandon the Christie Transition recommendations.”

###

See the November 2009 suspension of revisions to vapor intrusion guidance

View the Christie DEP Transition Plan (page 16 for vapor intrusion text)

Look at toxic vapor intrusions threats in New Jersey schools

Revisit the Kiddie Kollege day-care operation in an old mercury-laden thermometer factory

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability

A Monmouth University/Gannett Poll released today found widespread public support for strong environmental regulations (See the press release and poll results and methodology by clicking here).

The results are a strong rebuke of the Christie Administration’s early efforts to impose a freeze on regulations (see also Executive Order #1); scale back NJ’s strict state regulations to minimum federal standards (see Executive Order #2); and the sweeping anti-regulatory policy recommendations of the Christie Environmental Transition Team Report.

Seventy Nine (79%) of NJ residents said they would be upset in Governor Christie relaxed environmental regulations (42% “very upset” and  37% “somewhat upset”).

Support was highest among Democrats, where a surprising 91% supported strong environmental regulations, while  75% of Independents and even 67% of registered Republicans said they would be “upset” if NJ’s environmental regulations were relaxed in response to the state budget and economic crisis.

Just 15% were “not too upset” and a mere 4% actually supported rollbacks, saying they were “not upset at all”.

Any effort by the Republican Christie Administration to rollback environmental protections has virtually no public support (4%) and would lack support of even Republican voters.

The people of NJ historically have strongly supported environmental protection. Faced with the most pavement, pollution, cancer, and asthma per square mile in the country, they’ve learned that environmental and public health protections depend on a package of strong regulations, robust government oversight, and strict enforcement.

By repeatedly approving state and local ballot questions to raise their own taxes and issue debt to fund preservation by wide margins, NJ voters are willing to pay for environmental programs. And they will reject any politician who attempts to weaken any one of them (e.g. these Republican Assembly candidates who proposed to abolish DEP were defeated).

We hope that the Christie Administration abides by the will of the people and abandons early efforts to rollback NJ’s strong environmental regulations.

And we hope that these results will strengthen the resolve of Democrats and moderate Republicans to resist the Christie rollback agenda proposed thus far.

[2/7/10 - See Update below]

In his first test of leadership, independence, courage, and integrity, Bob Martin failed.

Who the hell is Bob Martin, what did he fail, and why is that important? Good questions. Let’s take them one at a time.

Bob Martin is Governor Christie’s nominee to be Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He is now serving as Acting DEP Commissioner, but must be confirmed by the full Senate. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee has not been scheduled yet.

We know very little about Mr. Martin, other than that he is a retired corporate executive with no environmental experience or expertise or public service in NJ (see this post). If confirmed, he would be the first DEP Commissioner ever with no environmental credentials or experience for the job, which has been called the toughest in state government.

Even the DEP website provides no information about Martin (not even a bio). Typically, upon assuming office (prior to confirmation), the Acting DEP Commissioner issues a statement to press and DEP employees thanking the Governor for the nomination, setting forth a vision for the Agency, and expressing high expectations for future progress. Other than press statements that Martin supports the controversial practice of “cost-benefit analysis” there is very little information for the public or Senate to judge his qualifications. Why is Martin silent? What are his plans for leading DEP?

All these troubling signals are sufficient justification for close scrutiny during Senate confirmation hearings. But heightening that scrutiny, Martin’s nomination must be placed in a highly controversial context:

1) an unprecedented set of Executive Orders that would freeze and roll back environmental protections;

2) the harsh DEP assessment and radical recommendations of Governor Christie’s Transition Report; and

3) Martin’s role as a member of the novel joint legislative and executive Christie “Red Tape Review” Taskforce.

Each of these Christie moves have been denounced by environmental groups and each one is virtually unprecedented in NJ politics.

So how is Martin dealing with this controversy?

Martin failed his first test, as reported in Sunday’s Bergen Record:

“N.J. Gov. Christie’s Transition Team has harsh words about state’s environmental department”.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

BY SCOTT FALLON

The Record

STAFF WRITER

Builders will no longer be forced to submit “extensive data” for some permits and may only have to go down a checklist for approval on others.

The required buffer zone between new development and a stream or river will be cut in half to 150 feet, increasing the chance of runoff polluting the waterways.

And cleanup standards for contaminated sites will be lowered.

Governor Christie’s environmental transition team made these and other recommendations in a strongly worded report that seeks to curb much of the Department of Environmental Protection’s power.

“Simply put, the DEP must do less with less, and do it better,” the report states. …

… Christie’s spokesman said last week that the report will be a cornerstone of the governor’s environmental policy. …

“This is not some blue-ribbon panel report that’s published, gathers dust on a shelf and then is thrown out when a new administration comes in,” said Michael Drewniak. “This is something that we will look over and take the best ideas from.“

Wow. Does Bob Martin share that harsh assessment of DEP’s allegedly poor performance and does he concur with that radical rollback policy agenda? Is this the agenda he wants to project going into Senate confirmation?

Here’s what Martin told the Record:

The man who will carry out Christie’s vision, acting DEP Commissioner Bob Martin, is declining all interview requests until after his appointment is confirmed by the legislature.

Bob Martin ducked. Not only that, but he put forth a bogus excuse for “no comment” – Martin has already selectively issued press statements (see this and this) since taking over, so the “decline interview requests” is clearly a tactic to duck hard questions from the press.

These are very bad signs of things to come.

So, it looks like the Governor’s Office will be calling the shots and pulling Martin’s strings on policy.  That is a continuation of the Corzine practice of micro-managing the DEP which has injected politics into science, law, and regulation. Given the inability of former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson to stand up to Corzine, this led DEP astray and weakened and compromised DEP’s independence and integrity.

If Martin is to avoid an even worse debacle than that presided over by Jackson, he needs to stiffen his spine. But this will be very tough to do, given his total lack of knowledge and experience, coupled with the radical anti-environmental rollback agenda already announced by his boss, Mr. Christie.

Let’s hope the Senate Judiciary Committee has the wisdom to closely scrutinize Mr. Martin and his vision and policy agenda for DEP.

[Update: Bob Martin has spoken - see today's Star Ledger: "NJ Department of Environmental Protection nominee outlines plans for embattled agency" we will be posting an assessment soon, but will note hre that it wasn't Katie Couric/Sarah Palin stuff]

This is a wonderful story that I am glad is beginning to get the larger attention it deserves. It is a story that weaves history, local political activism, and people who care about their community.

This place is special to me. When our kids were young, we built a new home in Hopewell. Because we sold our old home before construction was complete, we had to live for the summer in a rented house just above Jacobs Creek.

We were within earshot of what our kids lovingly named “The Noisy Bridge”. When a car passed over the wooden deck steel bridge, it made quite a noise. We would laugh each time we heard that lovely sound during that wonderful summer of 1993.

But enough of my personal nostalgia – click on the below link and read Marc DiIonno of the Star Ledger today – he does a superb job:

At historic Victorty Trail in Mercer County, a new battle emerges at Washinton’s path

“This issue has brought a lot of people together,” Cooper said. “This a rural area, so we all just go along about our business. But the bridge issue got us involved.”

The group formed last summer to petition local leaders to spare the old bridge. “We heard over and over, ‘this was a done deal,’ ” Kerr said…

“This our town, and our way of life, and we are going to fight for it,” Beth Kerr said.