Home > Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics, Race & immigration > Camden Residents Left in the Dust

Camden Residents Left in the Dust

Camden is NJ's poorest and most segregated city - ground zero for environmental injustice

Camden is NJ’s poorest and most segregated city – ground zero for environmental injustice

 

NEW JERSEY ALTERS HEALTH STUDY UNDER INDUSTRY PRESSURE –  Industry Allowed Private Meetings to Lobby for Changes in Camden Study

Washington, DC – Facing a lawsuit, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has released documents outlining how an air polution study of Camden neighborhoods was re-written to allay industry objections. The released e-mails depict a clubby, closed door climate in which the state regulators seek to assuage industry concerns even while keeping the affected community in the dark, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

At issue is an October 6, 2008 study by DEP scientists in partnership with the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey entitled “Final Report: Contribution of Particle Emissions from a Cement Facility to Outdoor Dust in Surrounding Community”. It assesses how much dust is blowing from piles of granulated blast furnace slag at the St. Lawrence Cement Facility onto adjacent Camden neighborhoods. The report concluded that:

  • There was a significant impact on nearby homes: “The estimated contributions of cement dust to outdoor dust measured by deposition dust samplers ranged from 4.9% to 18.2% … and 5.6 to 21.8%”; and
  • Simple controls are available: “A cover over the piles would be a reasonable and well tested way to control these fugitive emissions.

After this final report was posted on the DEP website, industry consultants sent objections to Nancy Wittenberg, DEP Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Regulation and a former lobbyist for the New Jersey Builders Association. DEP removed the “final report” from its website and Wittenberg set up a closed-door June 2, 2009 meeting with industry consultants to review their concerns.

In response to an Open Public Records Act request filed by former DEP employee Bill Wolfe for the final report and agency communications with industry, the agency initially claimed that no documents could be released because they were “deliberative” in nature and covered by “attorney-client privilege”. After PEER informed DEP that it was preparing to file suit challenging the basis for non-disclosure as bogus, on July 17, 2009 DEP released the requested material “except for the revised study which is slated for publication later this week, according to an agency official.

“In New Jersey, even science is negotiable,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who helped prepare the lawsuit. “Notably left out of the loop are the people in Camden who have to breathe this stuff daily and get no say as to whether a tarp over the slag heaps would be a commonsense step.”

This also appears to be yet another recent instance where state political appointees inappropriately screen scientific work. In fact this June, DEP formalized its political review process for all technical reports.

“DEP has become a serial offender against government transparency and scientific integrity,” added Wolfe. “This is only one sample of DEP cooking the books and then violating OPRA to cover the smell.”

###

Read the withdrawn Camden dust study “final report”

Look at the e-mail exchanges between DEP officials and industry

View the court-house steps OPRA reversal by DEP

See the industry comments on the dust study

Examine how DEP political appointees vet scientific and technical reports

  1. No comments yet.
  1. March 27th, 2011 at 04:25 | #1
  2. August 29th, 2012 at 07:29 | #2
  3. November 2nd, 2014 at 15:00 | #3
  4. December 9th, 2014 at 21:18 | #4
  5. May 18th, 2015 at 17:35 | #5
  6. June 3rd, 2015 at 14:35 | #6
  7. June 12th, 2015 at 16:36 | #7
  8. June 14th, 2015 at 04:23 | #8
  9. June 14th, 2015 at 23:35 | #9
  10. June 15th, 2015 at 11:55 | #10
  11. June 15th, 2015 at 15:50 | #11
  12. June 16th, 2015 at 06:50 | #12
  13. June 17th, 2015 at 12:22 | #13
  14. June 17th, 2015 at 16:39 | #14
  15. June 18th, 2015 at 18:15 | #15
  16. June 19th, 2015 at 17:45 | #16
  17. June 20th, 2015 at 09:29 | #17
  18. June 21st, 2015 at 01:56 | #18
  19. June 21st, 2015 at 04:01 | #19
  20. June 21st, 2015 at 06:07 | #20
  21. June 21st, 2015 at 14:31 | #21
  22. June 21st, 2015 at 20:32 | #22
  23. June 22nd, 2015 at 23:50 | #23
  24. June 23rd, 2015 at 04:41 | #24
  25. June 23rd, 2015 at 07:03 | #25
  26. June 23rd, 2015 at 09:26 | #26
  27. June 24th, 2015 at 11:54 | #27
  28. June 24th, 2015 at 13:58 | #28
  29. June 24th, 2015 at 15:59 | #29
  30. June 24th, 2015 at 18:07 | #30
  31. June 25th, 2015 at 09:01 | #31
  32. June 25th, 2015 at 13:19 | #32
  33. June 25th, 2015 at 15:22 | #33
  34. June 25th, 2015 at 19:19 | #34
  35. June 25th, 2015 at 21:24 | #35
  36. June 25th, 2015 at 23:31 | #36
  37. June 26th, 2015 at 01:41 | #37
  38. August 30th, 2015 at 11:21 | #38
  39. July 26th, 2016 at 08:21 | #39
  40. August 16th, 2019 at 14:47 | #40
You must be logged in to post a comment.