WolfeNotes.com

[Update #1: the Final Report and Citizens’ guide were just posted to DEP website – I update important FINDINGS/DELETIONS]

[Update#2 – Mayor’s response below – IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS NOTED

Having been caught with their pants down, in response to yesterday’s leak of a “communications” strategy and “messaging” campaign (see this), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) canceled Wednesday’s scheduled public meeting in Paterson, NJ. [Update: per the Mayor’s Office, the meeting tomorrow is on, but DEP press release just issued says nothing about a meeting]. The meeting was to brief the Paterson community on the results of a 5 year long, $740,000 study of toxic air pollution health risks.

Instead of publicly presenting the scientific research and openly responding to community concerns, the DEP and hand picked community leaders met privately today behind closed doors in the Mayors office to discuss the controversial matter. [Update: per the Mayor’s office, the meeting was for elected and appointed officials, but my sources say community reps were there as well]. Today’s meeting with the Mayor follows a Monday meeting between community leaders and Congressman Bill Pascrell.

I’ve been advised that there is political pressure being brought to keep the study’s findings quiet, because it might give Paterson a black eye and discourage redevelopment investment. Those like me who advocate full public disclosure and scientific integrity are being labeled and attacked as seeking to bash Paterson.

I can see why DEP has canceled the public meeting, because they would have faced some harsh questions about why their “communications” plan and “Citizens Guide” were so sharply at odds with the science and thus highly misleading. Here are just a few of the more egregious examples:

1. Why was Paterson selected for the research study:

The DEP “Citizens Guide” claims the following: click to see the draft DEP Citizens Guide (with staff edits)

Why was Paterson selected for this study?

Paterson City was chosen because it represents an urban community with mixed land use; commercial, industrial, mobile and residential, not because of concerns that air quality in Paterson is worse than in other New Jersey urban communities.

But DEP left some important facts out that directly contradict that claim. The EPA grant agreement, DEP powerpoint presentations, and a copy of the draft study I obtained state that Paterson was selected due to pollution “hot spots”, serious high air pollution related health problems, pollution close to schools, children’s health, and “environmental justice” issues. Paterson was a followup to the Camden air toxics/environmental justice study.

Significantly, the Paterson study was the first DEP attempt to calculate “cumulative risk” by estimating “combined cancer risks” of multiple pollutants – this is a cutting edge EJ public health issue, see: EJAC 2009 Report: Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities-March 2009 – yet  all this is ignored. [Update: the risk assessment and “combined cancer risks” in the draft report have been deleted from the Final Report posted on DEP website]

Here is what the draft Study says:

A. Why Paterson?

Paterson was chosen for this project because it is a mixed-use urban community with high population density and many of the characteristics of an environmental justice community. [Paterson] was selected because it qualifies as an air toxics “hot spot” due to the industrial (e.g. textiles; dyes; chemicals; metal fabrication, refinishing and recovery; plastics; printing; electronics; paper and food products, etc) commercial (e.g. dry cleaning; photo labs; commercial heaters/boilers; print shops, etc) and mobile sources (US I-80, Rt. 19) dominated sectors… Schools have been chosen as monitoring site locations allow UCAMPP the unique opportunity to monitor air toxics where children, a susceptible subpopulation, spend a portion of their time.

Paterson has all the characteristics of an environmental justice community with a disproportionately large percentage of families living at or below the poverty level. Nineteen percent of the families in Paterson live at or under the poverty level compared to 6.3% for the state. There are 149,000 residents, of which 1/3 are white, 1/3 black and the balance are some other race. Fifty percent of the population considers themselves to bee Hispanic or Latino. The population density is over 17,210 people per square mile.

Paterson has more than three times the state average for hospitalization rates due to asthma (Wallace, 2003). A study in Paterson (Freeman et al, 2002) found that 21% of third graders had been diagnosed with asthma or a related health problem. Paterson… has the fifth highest hospitalization rate for asthma in NJ (NJDHSS, 2003). Twenty eight air toxics (Leikauf, 2002) have been associated with exacerbations of asthma and the 1996 [EPA] National Air Toxics Assessment identified fourteen air toxics which are causing elevated cancer and non-cancer risks (NJDEP, 2003) in Passaic County

[Update: All three of these paragraphs were deleted in the Final Report. In concert with deletion of the “combined cancer risk” findings on cumulative risks, this is a serious misleading effort by DEP to downplay health risks].

There is more than a slight disagreement between DEP science and DEP spin.

2. The nature of the health risks

DEP systematically downplays public health risks of the pollution levels they found by omitting key scientific findings from the study, the high air pollution related health problems cited in #1 above, while inserting claims not found in the study. For example:

• “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 that the study was designed with a background monitoring station in Chester, NJ and many other 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 completely fails to mention that the study found 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

3. The urgency of DEP follow-up actions to reduce risks

DEP tried to create the appearance that they are aggressively taking action to reduce cancer causing air pollution emissions from industrial sources in Paterson. They claim:

The NJDEP enforcement program is investigating the possible source(s) of the elevated p-dichlorobenzene.

However, internal DEP emails I obtained document that DEP was aware of the problem since August of 2007, and had a specific local industry, Galaxi Chemical and a local garbage transfer station, targeted, yet for over two years appears not to have resolved the scientific issue and taken enforcement action. According to an August 23, 2007 DEP scientists email:

Linda – Here’s what I found out about 1,4 Dichlorobenze. It looks like the possible suspect could be Galaxie Chemical, which is less than 1/2 mile and just north of the C monitor. Their inventoried emission rate most likely will not account for your high numbers therefore it may be a situation where the company is in violation of their permit. We did not visit Galaxie, we did do a rive by early on with Mike Burgdoff (enforcement) and the place looked old and dirty.

4. The purpose and objective of the community outreach:

First of all, despite the study being over 5 years old, DEP only created their “communications plan” AFTER the Bergen Record wrote this story that put them in a very negative light: “Study Finds Paterson Has Significantly Higher Levels of Air Pollutants” (titled “City’s Air May Raise Cance Risk” in the Paterson edition)

Furthermore, DEP fails to state why they are conducting community outreach. According to their “messaging” plan, it appears that the DEP objective is to get their story straight and manipulate – instead of informing and responding to the community:

NJDEP will share report, citizen’s guide and FAQ with DHSS to provide consistent information/message.

I filed an OPRA public records request to obtain the study and all documents back on December 9, 2009. DEP claimed that some documents were privileged. Over 2 months later, I still do not have OPRA compliance, as DEP is withholding many documents, including: the final study, the transmittal letter to EPA, several meeting notes, emails, internal technical review comments, internal source track down comments, DEP  permit and enforcement documents, DEP management briefings, emissions source inventory, and current enforcement status (i.e. from data I obtained from DEP files, it looks like about $3 million in fines may not have been collected for at least 5 years).

I just spoke with Mayor Torres’ office and was promised a call back by the Mayor. I forwarded them the following questions. We will keep you posted on the responses we get.

1) Who was today’s meeting with (from DEP and community)?  What was the agenda? And what was the gist and outcome of the meeting?

2) Do you have a statement on the DEP UCAMPP study? Are you concerned about the cancer and asthma health risks documented in that study? Are you concerned about the delay by DEP in completing the study and briefing the Paterson community?

3) Why was Wednesday’s scheduled public meeting to present the study canceled? Will a public meeting be rescheduled?

4) What are your going forward plans to address the issues and reduce air pollution emissions in Paterson?

[Update #2 – Below is Mayor Torres’s response to the above questions –

The following is in response to your questions:

1)                   Elected and Appointed Officials Debriefing.

2)                   Data has been submitted to my Environmental Specialist and Health Officer for comments and recommendations.

3)                   At this time, the community briefing has not been cancelled.  However, should the decision be made to postpone due to inclement weather, the community briefing will take place on February 24, 2010, 5:30 p.m. in the Paterson City Hall Council Chambers, 155 Market Street – 3^rd Floor, Paterson, NJ.

4)                   EPA awarded NJDEP a $157,000 grant to conduct 12 months of additional monitoring in the City of Paterson and an educational and enforcement campaign will be implemented.

Mayor  Jose “joey” Torres

Office of the Mayor

973-321-1600 (Telephone)

973-321-1555 (Fax)

mayortorres@patcity.com

[Update: 3/4/10 – DEP has revised the Paterson study and posted a new Final Report version dated 2/24 – while the concerns expressed here were valid at the time, disregard criticism of the deletions described below. More to follow on exactly how the changes to the Report happened – end update]

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.

Regulatory Czar Lt. Governor Guadagno

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. NJDEP has issued Statewide Fish Consumption Advisories that 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.