WolfeNotes.com

The past is a remarkable thing. And you know the trite saying about those who fail to learn the lessons of history.

Well, a brief look back shows how Governor Christie is duplicating – almost verbatim – the failed environmental policies of Governor Whitman.

Ironically, as we document in detail below, Whitman herself conceded that failure in her own confirmation hearing for US EPA Administrator. So step right up and come along with us on this magical mystery tour.

Shortly after taking office in 1994, Whitman announced her DEP Commissioner, Bob Shinn, a man with no academic training or professional experience in environmental management. Christie’s DEP nominee, Bob Martin, shares more than a first name with Mr. Shinn.

In spring of 1994, Governor Whitman held a press conference in the Governor Office to personally issue a policy Report with the perverse acronym STARR: “Strategy for Regulatory Relief”. Christie has his “Red Tape Review Commission” Report teed up for spring.

In precisely the same fashion that the Christie Transition Report demonized DEP and environmental regulations for allegedly crippling the economy as a pretext for dismantling environmental protections, the Whitman STARR Report called for the following: (see page 130 of Whitman’s US Senate confirmation hearing transcript):

• Cutting New Jersey’s RTK list from 3,000 to 800 chemicals;
• Increasing the thresholds for DEP environmental reviews of local sewer plans;
• Reduction/elimination of compliance monitoring at major industrial facilities;
• Allowing industry lobbyists to rewrite State air permit regulations;
• Rollback of New Jersey’s model Clean Water Enforcement Act;
• Easing solid water industry economic regulation;
• Rolling back New Jersey’s hazardous waste management regulations to Federal minimums
• deregulating used oil as a hazardous waste;
• Relaxing standards for hazardous waste site cleanup;
• Reducing enforcement penalties;
• Providing grace periods;
• Polluter immunity for self disclosed violations;
• Alternate dispute resolution;
• Emission trading and privatization of permit reviews and hazardous site cleanups;
• Budget and staff reductions at DEP.

Shortly thereafter, on November 2, 1994, Whitman issued Executive Order #27. Whitman’s EO 27, just like Christie’s EO #2, required “cost benefit analysis” and promoted “federal consistency“, a policy that called for rolling back NJ’s standards to federal minimums.

Whitman recklessly issued this federal consistency policy sought by major NJ polluters like the NJBIA and Chemical Industry Council, despite warning memo’s to her DEP Commissioner that federal standards were not “technically justifiable” and totally inappropriate for NJ.

Specifically, to illustrate what was at stake, we disclosed a July 29, 1994 memo from Assistant Commissioner Nagy to Commissioner Shinn, that compared DEP’s strict standards with weaker EPA requirements and warned of a significant increase in the number of potential fatalities. This was not some tree hugger warning, it came from Shinn’s own Assistant Commissioner (complete memo found on page 126 of Whitman transcript):

Industry (e.g., CIC and NJBIA) would obviously prefer backing off to the EPA thresholds. ….However, the increases made by EPA on adoption were so large (averaging some 18 times the TCPA values with 33 of the 60 substances common to both lists assigned from 5 to 167 times corresponding TCPA values) that they are not technically justifiable in an area as densely populated as New Jersey where substances are generally handled on small sites, and would correlate with a significant increase in the number of potential fatalities.

At the request of the then US Senate Environment Committee Chair, we submitted testimony seeking to hold Whitman accountable for the policy objectives and implementation record of EO 27 (see page 120-154 of transcript). Here was our statement to the US Senate on EO27:

Statement 3f: Whitman issued an Executive Order 27 (1994) that mandated that State regulations that are more stringent than Federal requirements be justified by cost benefit analysis. This Order resulted in the across-the-board weakening of, among other things, State regulation for air, water and waste permits, deregulated used oil as hazardous waste and eroded chemical plant safely requirements addressed under the provisions of Section 112r of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Remarkably, instead of defending her own “federal consistency” policy, cost/benefit analysis, and Executive Order 27, Whitman submitted testimony that not only falsely denied any rollback of NJ’s state standards (there were several), Whitman did a complete U Turn and strongly made the case in support of NJ’s standards.

The Senate Environment Committee Chair asked Whitman to respond. Read Whitman’s verbatim response to our testimony below (found at p.132-139).

Whitman’s inventory of NJ’s strict environmental standards serves as a primer for Governor Christie. It lays out in detail why Christie’s Executive Order #2 is fatally flawed and why it will suffer the same fate as Whitman’s EO 27.

And in another supreme irony and historical echo, the Whitman response was written by John Spinello (see this), a corporate lawyer who also served on the Christie Environment Transition Team:

Response On Executive Order 27: Executive Order 27 (EO 27) stated that State agencies should consider applicable Federal standards when adopting regulations 136 that have Federal counterparts and should analyze whether existing Federal standards sufficiently protect the health of New Jersey’s citizens. When DEP determines that New Jersey needs more stringent standards, EO 27 simply requires us to explain that decision. Therefore, the Order does not prohibit DEP from adopting standards or regulations that are more stringent than their Federal counterpart and did not force DEP to weaken all existing standards in order to comply with the Order; New Jersey still has the flexibility to promulgate more stringent standards where necessary. In fact, after careful analyses, NJDEP has adopted numerous environmental standards or rules that are more stringent than EPA’s. Some examples include:

AIR

1. New Jersey’s standards for mercury emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators are more stringent than EPA’s. EPA standard is 80 ug/m3 or 85 percent control and New Jersey is 28 ug/m3 or 80 percent control. New Jersey’s standards were effective 1/1/96 whereas EPA’s just came into effect in 12/00.

2. New Jersey’s air toxics program is more comprehensive than EPA’s. New Jersey requires facilities to list air toxic emissions on their permits if they exceed a predefined threshold value. This would then potentially trigger a risk assessment by DEP or the application of a state-of-the-art standard for those air toxics. EPA on the other hand only requires air toxics to be listed on a permit if EPA has promulgated an emission standard for the particular source operation being permitted.

3. EPA does not have NOx RACT rules per se, but the NOx standards in their acid rain rules are less stringent than the NOx standards in our NOx RACT rules.

4. The stringent NOx standards for power plants in our NOx budget rules (.15 lbs/mwh) set the stage for EPA’s subsequent SIP call to 22 States.

5. Our preconstruction permitting program (Subchapter 8) for new and modified non—major sources is more comprehensive than EPA’s. EPA’s permitting trigger is between 25 – 100 tons per year of a given pollutant whereas New Jersey’s trigger (although it’s equipment based) equates to as low as approximately one ton per year.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. New Jersey’s 10 day transfer facility requirement is more stringent than EPA’s. We have standards for how waste must be managed during the 10 day holding period and we prohibit the mixing of unlike materials. Also, transporters must tell us that they’re operating a 10-day facility and must keep logs of material entering and exiting the facility. EPA does not have these requirements.

2. New Jersey requires hazardous waste generators to submit hazardous waste manifests (shipping papers), whereas EPA does not.

3. New Jersey requires hazardous waste transporters to be licensed, whereas EPA does not.

4. New Jersey requires entities to submit plans to us for approval before they can process used oil. EPA does not. Also, our standards for halogens in used oil fuel (1000 ppm) are more stringent than EPA’s (4000 ppm).

SOLID WASTE

1. We regulate transfer stations, transporters, and recycling facilities whereas EPA does not.

2. The Solid Waste Utility Control Act requires that people engaged in the solid waste business be regulated as a utility. New Jersey’s rules therefore set forth business practices, transaction standards, competition requirements and billing practices. There is no Federal counterpart to this.

3. The Comprehensive Regulated Medical Waste Management Act sets forth registration, transportation and waste handling requirements that are in addition to the solid waste requirements. This Act was based on a Federal version which has since lapsed. We are not aware of a Federal counterpart at this time.

4. The A901 Disclosure Review Act sets forth standard that must be met in order for an entity to engage in the business of solid waste transportation or processing/disposal. There is no Federal counterpart to this Act.

SITE REMEDIATION

1. When determining whether a site is sufficiently remediated, in most cases we are more stringent than EPA. New Jersey applies a risk factor of 1 x 10(6) (increased lifetime cancer risk)to individual contaminants whereas EPA applies a risk range of 1 x 10(4) to 1 x 10(6) and it is based on the cumulative impact of all contaminants.

2. We regulate large non-residential heating oil underground storage tanks (greater than 2,000 gallons), whereas EPA does not.

3. New Jersey requires that only New Jersey licensed individuals perform work on Federal and state-regulated underground storage tanks. There is no corresponding Federal requirement.

4. New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act prohibits certain types of industrial properties from being sold or transferred unless they are remediated first. EPA does not have this requirement.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT

1. New Jersey’s freshwater wetlands program includes buffers in the definition of transition areas whereas EPA does not.

SAFE DRINKING WATER

1. New Jersey has 15 chemicals for which we either have more stringent standards than EPA or we have a standard whereas EPA does not. For example, for MTBE, we have a standard whereas EPA does not. Also, for trichlorethylene, New Jerseyâ’s standard is 1 ppb, but the Federal standard is 5 ppb.

2. New Jersey has 13 drinking water standards that are more protective than Federal standards, and standards for 5 additional contaminants beyond those regulated at the Federal level.

WATER

1. New Jersey has regulations governing the construction of wastewater treatment and conveyance systems whereas EPA does not.

2. New Jersey permits all discharges to groundwater whereas EPA only permits underground injection and discharges at RCRA facilities.

3. The State law commonly known as the Clean Water Enforcement act (CWEA) has a number of provisions which are more stringent than the Federal Clean Water Act. In particular, the CWEA requires the Department or Delegated Local Agency to impose mandatory penalties for monitoring omissions or effluent violations that are serious violations or that cause the violator to become a significant non-complier.

PESTICIDES

The following pesticide initiatives/rules go beyond EPA programs and requirements Requirements for notification of the public prior to applications of pesticides so the public may take precautions to minimize exposure if deemed necessary.

1. Require commercial applicators to be licensed and certified (take exams) prior to using any pesticides, not just the more hazardous restricted use pesticides, as an additional protective measure. Require annual refresher training for agricultural workers.

2. Rules on applications conducted in schools in order to be protective of children, who are a vulnerable population.

3. Extensive regulations to prevent contamination, risk and exposure in homes and public buildings during structural pest control applications.

4. Regulate an additional industry sector of dealers of restricted use pesticides through licensing and record keeping requirements.

5. Require permits for aquatic pesticide applications and mosquito control applications to prevent pesticide misapplications and contamination in bodies of water and hazardous exposure during large-scale community spray programs.

RELEASE PREVENTION

1. New Jersey’s discharge prevention program is more stringent than the Federal requirements in that the State program covers a vast array of chemicals as well as petroleum and petroleum products. In addition, all plans required to be developed under New Jersey rules must be submitted to NJDEP for approval, while Federal plans are only required to be submitted for facilities with over one million gallons of storage or facilities that have a discharge. The State program inspects all regulated facilities once a year, and also inspects some non-regulated facilities whereas the Federal program inspects only a fraction of the regulated universe.

2. New Jersey’s TCPA (Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act) program is more stringent than the Federal program as follows: more covered chemicals; lower thresholds for some chemicals; more reporting requirements; and more inspections per year. Also, the State program requires a risk reduction effort after a hazard analysis is performed.

3. New Jersey’s RTK chemical inventory reporting program is more stringent than the Federal program in that employers must report regulated chemicals at a 500 pound threshold rather than the 10,000 pound Federal threshold. The State’s environmental release reporting program requires reporting at 10,000 pounds rather than the Federal 25,000 pounds. Also, the State program includes materials accounting where the Federal program does not.

home for sale in Pompton Lakes, NJ (7/9/08) -

[Update: EPA reply below]

The Bergen Record reports today that EPA is using twitter and facebook to interact with residents of Pompton Lakes on the Dupont site. (and see this).

I don’t want EPA tweets. I want EPA enforcement actions, financial resources, and strict oversight of NJ DEP.

So, I thought I’d test that EPA commitment to social networking and go directly to EPA with this baker’s dozen of easy questions. We will keep you posted on EPA’s reply:

Dave – a few questions:

1. have PL residents filed NJ Spill Fund claims to receive compensation for property value reductions associated with DuPont contamination?

2. Are residents aware that they are eligible to do so? DEP not likely to provide that advice, because they are seeking to minimize claims against that fund. Outrageously, DEP complained in December 14, 2009 legislative testimony about how new notification requirements to residents near toxic sites were increasing Spill Fund claims. Spill Fund revenues come from a very small surcharge on major corporate polluters, primarily the oil and chemical industry. If DEP cared about protecting people, they would publicize this information and inform residents. But instead, DEP protects polluters by keeping the Spill Fund a secret to avoid public pressure on raising the surcharge when it becomes obvious that claims greatly exceed funds. DEP Guidance to the public on how to file a Spill Fund claim is limited. (See the above link to Spill Fund regulations and below end note for Spill Fund eligible reimbursements for “damages“.)

3. Is EPA willing to help residents with real estate appraisals to document these reductions? (see Bergen Record’s “Pompton Lakes Plume Hurts Property Values”

4. At the Jan. 25 public hearing, there were many questions about why it took so long (until May of 2008) for DEP to “discover” the vapor intrusion problem and notify residents. Do residents understand that the “phased approach” under the NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance (and RCRA guidance) is what caused the delays?

5. Are residents aware that DEP knew of the vapor problem and that then existing groundwater standards and remedial approaches (i.e. passive remedy) were not protective of public health risks – on a statewide basis and at the Commissioner’s level – way back in February 2002 (I worked for the Commissioner at the time on this and still have the warning memo to Commissioner Campbell. Glad to share it if you are interested – or view the 2002 DEP Vulnerability Assessment – see page 5, final paragraph “Indoor air from contaminated groundwater“).

6. Are residents and EPA aware that NJ DEP adopted changes to the VI Guidance to accelerate indoor air sampling at “sensitive receptor” sites (i.e homes, schools, daycare center) in August 2009, but reversed those changes in November 2009?

7. So, is EPA willing to modify the RCRA VI Guidance’s “phased approach” (also known as “outside/in”) and accelerate indoor air sampling in Pompton and elsewhere in NJ for sites that may impact “sensitive receptors”, at least to the degree that DEP did in August 2009 Guidance revisions? Or pressure DEP to revise NJ VI Guidance and restore the August improvements?

8. Has EPA examined potential vapor migration along subsurface infrastructure? Why would vapor only follow plume and not infrastructure? If vapors are close to surface, don’t they seek path of least resistance, like all fluids? If so, vapor is omni-directional.

9. Do you have the side by side comparison of RCRA Corrective Action program versus Superfund cleanup I requested at the public hearing? BTW, has NJ received full EPA delegation for the RCRA Corrective Action program?

10. Do you have information on the details of any EPA and DEP enforcement act against Dupont that I requested at the hearing? (e.g. fines, penalties collected) Have any RCRA or Clean Water Act enforcement actions been taken by EPA? Has DEP issued ANY NJ Spill Act or Water Pollution Control Act violations against RP Dupont?

11. Has NJ DHSS agreed to do a comprehensive epidemiological study, as I requested at the hearing?

12. Has NJ DHSS agreed to provide health screening medical physicals and sampling of blood, urine, hair, fingernails, and tissue to assess historic exposures?

13. Has EPA made a final decision on RCRA versus Superfund? If not, When will that decision be made?

Appreciate your favorable consideration and timely written replies.

Here is what damages are eligible for compensation under Spill Fund:

“Damages” means all cleanup and removal costs and all direct and indirect damages actually incurred, no matter by whom sustained, arising in connection with a discharge of a hazardous substance, or in connection with a threatened discharge, which costs and damages include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The cost of restoring, repairing or replacing any real or personal property damaged or destroyed by a discharge, any income lost from the time such property is damaged to the time such property is restored, repaired or replaced, and any reduction in value of such property caused by such discharge in comparison with its value absent the discharge;

2. The cost of restoration and replacement, where possible, of any natural resource damaged or destroyed by a discharge;

3. Loss of income or impairment of earning capacity due to damage to real or personal property, including natural resources destroyed or damaged by a discharge, provided that such loss or impairment exceeds 10 percent of the amount which the claimant derives, based upon income or business records, exclusive of other sources of income, from activities related to the particular real or personal property or natural resources damaged or destroyed by such discharge during the week, month or year for which the claim is filed;

4. Loss of tax revenue by a state or local government for a period not to exceed one year, due to damage to real or personal property proximately resulting from a discharge (which one-year period, in the case of lost real property tax revenue, commences on the effective date of the first reduction in the assessed value of real property for damage proximately resulting from the discharge);

5. Interest on loans obtained or other obligations incurred by a claimant for the purpose of ameliorating the adverse effects of a discharge pending the payment or settlement of a claim;

6. Such sums as may be necessary to reimburse a local unit for costs incurred in an emergency response action taken to prevent, contain, mitigate, cleanup or remove a discharge or threatened discharge of a hazardous substance; and

7. Costs for legal services necessary for remediating contamination, including attorney’s fees for contracting or obtaining permits, drawing of ordinances, acquisition of land and rights of way, drawing and administering construction contracts, and for legal work connected with necessary financing for the construction by a municipal utility authority of a new water system. Damages do not include costs normally associated with the listing, sale and transfer of property which is the subject of a claim.

[Update: to his credit, Dave Kluesner from EPA replied immediately, although he dodged all the substance and by failing to commit to a timetable to provide responses, he attempted to shift the onus on me to monitor EPA’s followup. I asked several of these questions at the public hearing weeks ago. Yes they are relatively technical questions, but Dave works for EPA, a technical regulatory agency. These are not good signs:

Bill – Hi.  All very technical questions that I will send to EPA and NJ DEP technical team working on Pompton/Dupont.  It may take a bit of time to respond due to the nature of the questions and the current work load that the project team is managing.  Please nudge me if you don’t hear back in your desired timeframe.
_______________________________________________________
David Kluesner  –  Public Affairs
U.S. EPA  –  Manhattan Office
290 Broadway, 26th Floor  /  NY, NY 10007
212.637.3653  /  http://www.epa.gov/region2

Those were the days, my friend
We thought they’d never end
We’d sing and dance forever and a day
We’d live the life we choose
We’d fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way

[shmaltzy Russian gypsy song popularized by Mary Hopkins in late 1968]

[Update: 2/12/10 – “Upset” my ass. Don’t be fooled by the PolitikerNJ.com headline. NJEF is still providing cover for Christie and despite Executive Orders 1-4; the DEP and Energy Transition Reports; nomination of Bob Martin; and huge budget raids, still does not have “buyers remorse”: “Environmental group that endorsed Christie is upset with budget cuts“]

The recent case of DEP politicizing the science of a Paterson air toxics study led me to reflect on how far the environmental community has fallen over the last 16 years.

Back in 1994, when an “Open for Business” Republican Governor nominated an unqualified DEP Commissioner, and then proceeded to roll back regulations (see EO 27), slash DEP budgets, and mount a public relations campaign to lie about public health science on mercury risks see this, the NJ environmental community went to war, led by the NJ Environmental Federation (full disclosure: I was forced out of DEP as a result of mercury disclosures and served as Policy Director for NJEF in 1994 -1995).

The very first battle was over the Whitman administration’s outrageous mishandling of a mercury research study in March 1994. That battle set the tone for the next 4 years of Whitman I.

I was directly involved in both the mercury 1994 and Paterson 2010 disputes, so I can say with confidence that how Whitman politicized the toxic mercury science has very strong parallels to DEP’s current efforts to downplay the health risks of air toxics in Paterson. Basically, both cases involve high level DEP managers intervening in DEP science to mislead the public and avoid taking regulatory action  (For those interested in the history, the Whitman/DEP mercury story is told with links to documents and press clips in this post – click this for the cliff notes version)

But the environmental community’s non-response in 2010 to DEP’s actions in Paterson could not have been more different than their 1994 outrage over Whitman/DEP’s handling of toxic mercury.

In 1994, Dolores Phillips was the NJEF Trenton lobbyist. Dolores was well known for knowledgeable, aggressive, and principled advocacy. She had a high profile in the media and the legislature, and she was often a harsh critic willing to call people out.

The thought that the Governor’s Office – or DEP managers – would consider Dolores an Allie or someone they could play inside games with and reach out to and spin the findings of a scientific study would be inconceivable. I was with DEP at the time (on the 7th floor) and can tell you that the bureaucrats in DEP were afraid of her.

Now, 16 later, Dave Pringle is NJEF’s Trenton lobbyist. (Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club was not on the Trenton scene yet).

In the recent case in Paterson, not only have NJEF and Pringle been completely silent, but DEP managers actually wrote Pringle into their deeply cynical PR sham “ Communications Strategy memo“, which said:

7. Prior to Feb 10 meetings, Jeanne Herb to reach out to Jeff Tittel, Dave Pringle and members of the EJ commission to brief them on the study results.

Here’s a few great comparisons quotes by NJEF staff and Board members – instructive in light of today’s silence :

This is blatant manipulation of the public, period. It reeks of contempt. If the Department were follwing the advice of its own scientists, thay would be sampling human blood and breast milk.” Dolores Phillips, NJEF 3/18/94 Trenton Times, page 1 link to press clip

We urge the Governor to read the Report. We believe that she is being ill advised. Dolores Phillips NJEF – The Press of Atlantic City, 3/3/94  link to press clip

 

The Governor’s comments are scientifically inaccurate. All mercury is harmful – that’s the bottom line. Dolores Phillips – NJEF 3/22/94 Star Ledger link to press clip

The science is solid enough for the Governor to take action. Both the Governor and the Commissioner are making scientifically inaccurate statements. The problem of mercury pollution is being mismanaged by the Governor. Dolores Phillips, NJEF – 3/22/94 Trenton Times link to press clip – plus Whitman scolded by academic scientists in the press,

We have a pollution problem with mercury that is serious. The public health, particularly the health of our children, should come before politics” Sharon Finlayson NJEF Board Member – Philadelphia Inquirer/AP 3/3/94 link to press clip

We need a policy call from Governor Whitman on how to warn the public and prevent further mercury contamination. By her silence on the issue, she is putting the public at risk. Jane Nogacki NJEF Toxics Coordinator –  AC Press & Trenton Times   3/3/94  link to press clip

Dave Pringle is not pleased by the current Paterson situation – instead of criticizing DEP for lying to the public, he attacks me for exposing the DEP lies and the fact that DEP managers viewed him as a lapdog and were comfortable writing him into their sham communications plan.

Here’s Dave on Governor Christie’s budget cuts, denounced by the Sierra Club as a raid on funds for clean air and clean water:

“We understand that Governor Corzine left this fiscal and environmental mess for Governor Christie to clean up. Our new governor has made strong commitments on the environment and about getting our fiscal house in order and today’s developments demonstrate there’s much that needs to be done better and fast.”

Oh my …. as they say, the facts speak for themselves.

[Update below]

Today’s Bergen Record reports gross scientific misconduct by political officials in the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) see: Paterson Air Study Raises Questions:

But the report fails to include a more alarming assessment of the combined cancer risk of all the airborne chemicals that had been part of an earlier draft of the report, an omission environmentalists sharply criticized.

The cancer risk assessment figures in the early version indicated the combined chemical levels measured in the air were 190 to 710 times above what is considered acceptable by the state.

“When we breathe the air, we breathe all the chemicals present, not each one individually. This combined cancer risk assessment was cutting-edge science. Removing this guts the report,” said Bill Wolfe, New Jersey director of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Wolfe obtained a copy of the earlier draft by filing an open records request for access to the study data.

Below is page 61 of the DEP’s draft Report which was eliminated – along with all references to the core issue of cumulative risks – from the final version of the study. Note the combined cancer risks (shown at the bottom of the page) range from 190 per million to over 710 per million – while NJ’s cancer risk standard is 1 in a million.

Jeanne Herb, Director of Policy, Planning & Science speaks at a December 2, 2009 meeting of the DEP’s own Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Jeanne Herb, a political appointee with no scientific expertise, who has issued gag orders to DEP scientists in response to public controversies on several other previous DEP scientific reports that documented unacceptable cancer risks, is not concerned by this large and serious violation of DEP’s own cancer risk standards and enforcement response policy. Herb is quoted as saying:

“After consulting with other experts, we decided the field was not ripe “there’s no standard method nationally to measure this risk,” said Jeanne Herb, director of policy and planning for the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Researchers also felt their combined cancer risk assessment did not produce any result “they felt was alarming,” Herb said.

In terms of an alleged lack of a “national standard method”, Herb knows that is a complete sham argument.

I also challenge Herb to provide written peer review  comments by those “experts” Herb claims she consulted. Thus far, DEP has refused to proide any such comments in response to the OPRA public records request I filed in December 9.

US EPA funded the DEP’s Paterson air toxics research project with $500,000 of federal money. EPA was well aware of and involved in developing its cumulative risk methodology and ranked the project number one in the Country. Furthermore, Herb knows damn well that for more than 15 years – since the mid 1990’s – EPA has set a national scientific priority to develop the science and methodology to address cumulative risks.

Most recently, that EPA policy was referenced in a March 2009 Report to DEP Commissioner Mauriello – a report discussed at length during a December 2, 2009 meeting of the Environmental Justice Advisory Council that Herb herself chaired.We wrote about that meeting here: “DEP Discovers Discrimination – Dumps Environmental Justice Issue in Christie’s Lap”

Here is EPA policy:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents define the term “aggregate risk” as the risk from all routes of exposure to a single substance, and the term “cumulative risk” as the risk from all routes of exposure to a group of substances. They are silent on the issue of multiple sources. 2 In order to have a clear and intelligible discussion about cumulative impacts, it is important for the NJDEP to agree on the definition of terms that are used. Appendix A provides some examples from various sources that might be useful. The choice of definition is not as important as assuring that everyone involved in a single conversation are all using a term with the same definition in mind.

In the mid-1990s, the EPA also developed a “Cumulative Exposure Project” that incorporated multiple pollutants, multiple sources, and multiple pathways (air, food and drinking water), but did not directly address duration.3 However, the EPA has not been able to extend this effort beyond the inhalation pathway which continues to be addressed by the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment Project. (see: EJAC 2009 Report: Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities-March 2009

Not ripe? I’m certainly no Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn, but even a fool knows you don’t ripen the grape by hacking down the vine. As Bob Marley wrote (Eric Clapton is my favorite version):

Every time I plant a seed, (s)he says “kill it before it grows”. [I shot the Sheriff]

From the chronology and DEP’s own documents I discovered during an OPRA file review and DEP documents that were leaked to me (ie. the  “communications strategy” and “Citizen’s Guide”), it is now clear what went on here.

I would hope that those that believe in scientific integrity and Environmental Justice advocates are seriously concerned with what was done here. DEP deleted factual findings regarding children’s health impacts, the environmental justice characteristics of Paterson, and combined cancer risks from a scientific research study.

Then, AFTER my blog AND the Bergen Record exposed this, DEP still tried to cover this all up. To do so, DEP drafted – in February, more than 5 YEARS after the study was originated – a sham “community outreach”, “communication plan”, “Citizens Guide”, and press release to lie about it and cover it up.

This goes far beyond scientific suppression and political interference in science.

This is completely unacceptable professionally and intolerably irresponsible science and regulatory behavior..

We have covered this issue extensively and will remain engaged (for the full story and complete documents, see this, and this and this).

[Update: 3/4/10 – We got their attention, but looks like merely damage control. DEP has revised the Paterson study and posted a new Final Report version dated 2/24 – with the exception of deletion of cumulative risks, please disregard criticism of the deletions described below. More to follow on exactly how the changes to the Report happened. ~~~ end update]

Page 61 from Draft report shows unacceptably high combined cancer risks

tenants in low income housing in Phillipsburgh, NJ

[Update #1: excellent coverage by NJNewsroom.com]

[Update #2: 2/11/10 – another view: Paul Mulshine is a wingnut]

Continuing in the same legal fashion as his arrogant War on the Environment via Executive Order fiat, NJ Governor Christie issued another Executive Order declaring a war on the poor, opening another front in his power hungry radical right wing battle on progressive policy.

This quote from today’s Star Ledger says it all – and it follows the same pattern set by Christie’s environmental rollback executive orders (and tellingly, the new task force will be chaired by Marcia Karrow, the right wing attack dog X-legislator who did such a poor job on the DEP Transition Report:

“The governor is charged with executing the laws, not making them,” he said. “The executive order defies the court’s directives to adopt and implement regulations that comply with out (sic) state constitution.”

(see: NJ Gov. Christie creates task force to review affordable housing

I view housing as a human right and strongly support affordable housing and state imposed legal mandates to fulfill the constitutional obligation found in the 1975 Mt. Laurel case. But I don’t pretend to be an expert on COAH, so will refer interested readers to the Star Ledger story, affordable housing advocates’ website, and the Christie Executive Order #12.

abandoned housing in Camden, NJ

On the environmental and land use policy side, I think my enviro colleagues are under some expectation that “gutting COAH” will somehow result in better land use planning, stronger environmental protection, and an end to the “builders remedy” that is driving so much sprawl development. This may lead them to sit out this debate, or actually support Christie.

my nomination for the worst sprawl in NJ

But my ENGO colleagues are deluded, because to achieve the growth management, land use planning, and environmental protections they seek would require a complete reversal of Christie’s strongly pro-economic anti-environmental policies. It would also take state mandates, which Christie has rejected in Executive Order #4 and strong state leadership, which Christie has rejected by making this a home rule issue, driven by the League of Municipalities.  Plus, there is a potentially significant public health downside.  Due to the scarcity of developable land in NJ, high land prices, racist and exclusionary suburban factions, and pressures to redevelop marginal lands and toxic sites (known as “brownfields”) it is likely that locally undesirable affordable housing will be built on toxic sites and old landfills, exposing low income residents to unacceptable health risks.

But regardless of one’s views on affordable housing, we all should be very concerned when a Governor oversteps his authority and abuses power in such a fashion.

We are talking about constitutional issues of separation of power, judicial power, and human rights.

freedom in America - free to sleep on a bench