WolfeNotes.com

Dr. Jon Miller, Assistant professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, gave a brief presentation of the “State of the Shore” in terms of  2009 storm impacts on beaches. During the 2009 season, the NJ coast was battered by a series of severe storms that were the worst in the last 20 years of monitoring in terms of storm intensity, beach erosion, and storm damage.

While some desperately hoped that the damaging 2009 storm season would not become “the new normal”, I couldn’t help but think about global warming model predictions of far more severe storm frequency and intensity. So get used to it – global warming is here and the 2009 season was just the beginning of global warming impacts.

Of course, no invited scientists spoke about this inconvenient fact, or, for that matter,  said anything at all about global warming driven sea level rise, shore vulnerability, the need for adaptation of NJ’ over-developed shoreline, or limit development in high hazard areas.

Dr. Louise Wooten of Georgian Court University gave a brief talk about the invasive dune species, Asiatic sand sedge (Carex kobomugi). According to Wooten, at curent rates of invasive species colonization, there will be no native dune vegetation in NJ in the next 20 years!  I found this the most shocking statement all day.

Dr. Josh Kohut of Rutgers University gave a brief talk about efforts to get a better understanding of dangerous rip currents.

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin emphasized that New Jerseyans want 3 things for beaches: that they are safe, clean, and open.

He said Governor Christie’s made shore protection a priority and illustrated that by the Governor’s oppostion to off shore oil drilling (before the Gulf spill); his opposition to off shore LNG plants; and his support for beach replenishment project funding.

Curious, while opposing hypothetical off shore LNG, Christie has done nothing to protect NJ from real threats of natural gas drilling, known as “fracking”, in neighboring NY and Pennyslvania. This gas drilling represents a serious threat to the Delaware River and NJ’s water supply. 

Martin clearly backed away from his press release earlier this week announcing the NJ gulf oil spill monitoring team. Martin went out of his way to downplay any Gulf oil spill risks to NJ beaches. I got the sense that he realized the his prior press release was ill advised and in poor judgment.  [Update: just read the NBC TV interview, and must revise this conclusion. Martin is ramping up the gulf oil fear, not tamping it down. I think this is just plain irresponsible given the low probability and deeply hypocritical given that Martin's own deregulatory policies are what led to teh Gulf blowout]

Unfortunately, Martin did the same old DEP dance, by touting the limited and misleading beach bacteria sampling program, while ignoring broader ocean/coastal ecosystem health concerns.

I was disappointed but not surprised by the fact that Martin failed to talk about the 800 pound Gorilla in the room i.e. lessons from the gulf oil spill in terms of the failures associated with lax  regulatory oversight by the federal Minerals Management Service and how that failure would influence his NJ state policy and DEP oversight of NJ industries. 

Martin emphasized the $40 billion economic value of shore tourism. But he failed to note the economic benefits of eco-tourism, birding, and the value of recreational and commercial fisheries.

Martin also failed  to mention NJ’s newly legislatively enacted ecosystem based management policy, and the newly created Coastal and Ocean Protection Council. Governor Christie has yet to nominate appoitments to that Council, while Martin has failed to embrace or fund ecosystem based managment.

Of course, all of the above is unlikely to be reported in tomorrow press, which I predict will focus exclusively on the “Top 10 NJ Beaches”.[Update - TV 12 took the tourism bait, but I was wrong on this too - see news story links above]

We all recall the “Big Map“, right? [full disclosure: I worked closely with former Commissioner Brad Campbell on this failed initiative]

“Big Map” was a futile DEP effort to regulate development based on a map (see NY Times post mortem if you are unfamiliar with that controversial failure: War on Sprawl In New Jersey Hits a Wall 

Nine months after Gov. James E. McGreevey promised to wage the nation’s toughest anti-sprawl campaign in its most crowded state, his bold growth-control proposals are all but in tatters.

The governor and his staff conceded in recent interviews that a divided Legislature and opposition from builders made it pointless to introduce the most far-reaching anti-sprawl laws he outlined in a fiery State of the State address in January, when he vowed to take on ”those who profit from the strip malls and McMansions.” …

… on Friday, the administration abandoned the BIG map, for Blueprint for Intelligent Growth, which had divided the state into areas open for more growth, some growth and no growth.

Well, after Monday’s public hearing at DEP, where DEP rolled out their new map based toxic site cleanup priority scheme, I had echoes of  “Big Map” ringing in my ears. 

If this latest DEP initiative gets anywhere near the scrutiny of “Big Map“, a similar outcome is assured. Here’s why.

Last year, the Legislature enacted a controversial law that privatized much of the State toxic site cleanup program by creating a radical new model, led by private contractors called ”Licensed Site Professionals” (LSPs). The new law put control of cleanups in LSP hands,  not the Department of Environmental Protection.

To reduce the obvious huge inherent risks of abuse of any program that puts polluters in charge of toxic site cleanups, the law attempted to limit the kind of toxic sites that LSP’s could handle and sought to retain DEP control of the highest risks sites.

Under the new scheme, private LSP’s focus on the lower risk sites, such as simple home heating oil tanks and minor gas station cleanups. In contrast, DEP keeps the big, complex and high risk major industrial sites that represented serious risks to public health and the environment. At least, that’s how it was supposed to work and how the law was written.

The toxic site cleanup cases were to be divied up between LSPs and DEP based on a new risk prioritization scheme – known as the “Remedial Priorty System” (RPS). The RPS was required to consider all significant risks to human health and the environment and rank sites based on those risks. Based on the RPS ranking, DEP not only would retain the high risk sites, but could take over control of sites from LSP’s if they were ranked as high risk sites.

The RPS system is a complex and extremely important undertaking, because risks from toxic sites come in many forms. The RPS was required by law to be adopted by May 7, 2010.

The aggressive 1 year May 7 deadline for RPS was established basically for two reasons: first, the RPS is an essential component in the design of the new LSP program, which really can not be implemented without a robust RPS system in place to assure adequate oversight and safeguards are in place BEFORE case management decisions are made. 

Second, the RPS was mandated 28 years ago in the 1982 amendments to the Spill Act.

In 2006, we disclosed internal DEP documents that showed that DEP had not only failed to comply with this 1982 requirement, but intentionaly abandoned the effort (see below from PEER). In response to our disclosure, then DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson was forced to pledge that her “first priority” was developing a RPS system. This Jackson commitment got written into the LSP law.

Obviously, communities, homeowners, environmental groups, polluters, and the business community have intense and competing  interests in knowing of the risks of hazardous sites – which are the worst risks?

For years, DEP dodged these controversial questions by not adopting an RPS system and ranked list of toxic sites for the public to see.

So all eyes were on the DEP’s new RPS, which they rolled out at a public hearing on Monday.

Unfortunately, despite highly competent technical work, overall, the DEP RPS failed badly.

DEP staffers presented a draft RPS that was limited only to a portion of groundwater pollution impacts (i.e. potential risks to drinking water wells).

But other groundwater related risks, such as serious risks of volatile toxic chemical vapor intrusion into thousands of homes, schools, daycares, etc, were ignored. DEP requires that vapor intrusion risk be considered in the cleanup process, so failure to include them in the RPS is baffling. 

Ignored also were risks from polluted groundwater that migrates to rivers, streams and wetlands and  harms fish, wildlife, and natural resources.  DEP regulations require that surface water, natural  resource impacts and ecological risks be considered, so failure to include them in the RPS is baffling.

Ignored also were risks of ingesting or inhaling contaminated soil or dust from a toxic site, which are a major category of risk that drive many human health risk and exposure assessments. In fact, most cleanup standards are based on soil risks. DEP cleanup regulations require sampling, delineation, and cleanup of contaminated soils, so failure to consider them in RPS is baffling.

Most importantly, the RPS is supposed to set priorities for cleanup. So it is vital that not only all potential human exposure pathways and ecological risks be considered, but that the cumulative risks of multiple toxic sites and other pollution burdens  be considered as well. Many older and urban communities in NJ have multiple pollution sources concentrated in their neighborhoods. 

These cumulative risk – of multiple toxic sites, multiple industrial pollution sources, and mutiple chemical pollutants – have been ignored by DEP for years, despite emerging science documenting serious risks.

Equally, the disporportionate burden born by poor and minority communities – and the unique health and social vulnerabilities of residents of those communities - must be considered in any cleanup priority scheme.

DEP itself recently found that race and income were correlated with environmental pollution burdens. Implementing an EJ policy has been and allegedly continues to be a priority of Commissioner Martin. Yet, amazingly, the DEP RPS compeletly failed to consider what are known as “disproportionate  impacts” and “environmental justice” concerns.

The current draft RPS DEP released is based on a fairly sophisticated “Geographic Information System” (GIS) model. The GIS component of the model has multiple environmental data layers reflecting land use, natural reosurces, water, etc. which are overlain by toxic site information. Toxic sites neaby sensitive receptors, such as homes, are assigned various points to rank potential risks.

The RPS’ landscape mapping approach, GIS systems, and data layers are the same ones used for the “Big Map” initiative, so, in addition to flagging fatal RPS flaws, I urged DEP staffers to learn the lessons of the prior “Big Map” failure. The technical and political lessons are many.

For example, in developing “Big Map”, DEP GIS experts repeatedly warned the Commissioner that the GIS data layers were not designed for site specific regulatory purposes. Inaccuracies and errors in the data were used to discredit the entire enterprise: builders were quick to find and politically exploit many examples where a DEP mapped wetland was now a Walmart. Toxic site issues make all these land use problems far more complex and open many new cans of scientific and political worms, e.g. proximity to receptors is not necessarily a good surrogate for presumed risks of a full exposure pathway.  As such, the RPS has a huge potential to break down into numerous site specific risk asesment battles, as polluters challenge the lack of science to support risk estimates in order to downplay those risks and control site cleanups though the LSP program. 

DEP claimed that currently ignored vapor intrustion, soil, and ecological risks would be considered in future updates of the model over the next year or so (perhaps longer). However, ANY implementation of the new LSP law requires that a robust RPS be in place BEFOREHAND.

In response to critical questions from EJ advocates and EJ Advisory Committee members Dr. Nicky Sheats and Ana Baptista of Newark’s Ironbound,  DEP conceded that the RPS model was not designed to consider cumulative risks or EJ concerns. DEP staffers explained that the RPS model considered only toxic sites in terms of impacts on proximate receptors. In contrast, a cumulative impact based approach would have to look first at the receptors,  and then consider them in terms of multiple toxic sites and multiple other pollution sources.

Comparing the DEP RPS model with an alternative cumulative impact or EJ model is like comparing a microscope to a telescope – they are designed for completely different purposes. So you can’t just tweak the DEP RPS model to get it to consider cumulative impacts and EJ concerns.

So, after DEP conceded this model desing problem, I was disturbed by Dave Pringle’s attempt to claim that this “might be” the first effort to fulfill Governor Christie’s campaign pledge to inject cumulative impacts and EJ concerns  into DEP decisions.

Instead, it is a huge missed opportunity and failure to do so. 

And Bob Martin owns that failure.

 For full details and links to the documents, see below release from PEER

 

Martin needs to stop coddling the oil and chemical  industries as “customers” and ramp up regulatory oversight and enforcement

[Update 5 : 5/29/10 NY Times: Documents Show Early Worries About Safety of Rig

In the documents, company officials apologized to federal regulators for not having mentioned the type of casing they were using earlier, adding that they had “inadvertently” failed to include it. In the permit request, they did not disclose BP’s own internal concerns about the design of the casing.

Less than 10 minutes after the request was submitted, federal regulators approved the permit.

Update 4 - 5/27/10 - Star Ledger editorial - they get it in criticizing the federal MMS, but miss the story that right here in NJ, lax  MMS oversight is Christie policy]

Update 3 – Mike Miller, Atlantic City Press has a good story on the Coast Guard’s spill response plan for the Delaware Bay . The story focuses on risks from shipping oil, so one point I might add are risks at the refineries themselves, which are under-regulated. The Coast Guard is the spill response lead on the water agency and their approach is a refreshing contrast with DEP. The Coast Guard sent about 20 staff to the Gulf to help out and learn hands-on technical lessons to strengthen their programs. In contrast, DEP, a minor support agency for spills, sits in Trenton and issues press releases about virtually zero probability risks of Gulf oil hitting NJ beaches, all while cutting resources and weakening important land side regulatory programs at the refinery and chemical facilities. Recall that a BP Texas oil refinery had a major fatal explosion and fire in 2005. Those risks obviously impact the water and are managed by DEP.] 

Update 2: Philly Inquirer:  N.J. monitors spill, prepares action plan

“Let’s just say I’m flabbergasted by the irony,” said Wolfe, a former DEP employee and now a frequent critic.

He said Gov. Christie’s current policies, including more self-regulation of industry, “are exactly the kind of problem that caused the oil spill to begin with.”

“There are so many issues that it masks,” he added. “It leads to the appearance that the department is actively engaged and has the staff resources and leadership to respond. None of that exists.”

[Update 1: keeping it simple: If we had a functioning press corps (instead of stenographers that regurgitate DEP press releases), here are the kinds of questions for DEP Commissioner Martin that would have been prompted by today's DEP press release:

1. You have spoken of the need to change DEP culture and treat regulated industries as "customers". The federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) has a culture that views BP Oil as a "customer". Do you still think DEP should view regulated industries as "customers"?

2.  You have criticized DEP "red tape" and emphasized the need for waivers from environmental requirements to provide flexibility and promote economic development. You have made it a priority to streamline and expedite DEP environmental reviews.  The MMS granted BP oil drilling wiavers from NEPA and expedited environmental reviews. In light of MMS policies, do you still stand by those policies and priorities?  

3. You have said that DEP should play a "major role in economic development" The MMS viewed their role as promoting the oil and gas industry's production. Do you still believe that DEP should promote economic development?

4. You have enacted a new Department-wide policy based on cost benefit analysis (CBA). The MMS oil drilling regulations are heavily influenced by CBA. Do you stand by a policy to place greater emphasis on CBA in DEP decision-making?

5. Executieve Order #2 requires adoption of federal standards. The Red Tape Report recommends that 15 DEP rules be reconsidered to be consistent with federal standards. You abandoned a DEP state drinking water standard for perchlorate pending federal EPA recommendations. Federal standards and federal oversight obviously were inadequate in protecting the gulf region. Do you still support a policy to make NJ standards consistent with federal minimums?

6. You supported the Corzine administration's privatized toxic site cleanup law that greatly reduced DEP oversight and provided even more control by industry. Given the failure of BP self regulation and lax oversight, do you still support more private control and less DEP oversight of pollution risks?]

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin today issued an over the top press release touting his efforts.

The spin and huge ironies force me to call BS on it all – while Martin hypes a low probability hypothetical risk from the Gulf,  his policy increases significant real risks in his own backyard:

“The probability is fairly close to zero, but it’s not zero,” said Josh Kohut, an assistant professor at the Rutgers Coastal Ocean Observation Laboratory. (link)

COMMISSIONER CREATES GULF SPILL TEAM TO CONSIDER  POSSIBLE  IMPACTS OF LOUISIANA OIL SPILL ON NEW JERSEY

IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                              Contact: Lawrence Ragonese
(609) 292-2994
May 25, 2010
Lawrence Hajna (609) 984-1795

(10/P47)TRENTON — While it is improbable the BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana will have any effect on the Jersey Shore or the State’s fishing industry this summer, the Department of Environmental Protection is not taking any chances. Commissioner Bob Martin today announced formation of a special Gulf Spill Team to closely monitor the situation, to create a unique scientific model of the likely path of the contaminated waters, and to develop a plan of action if the oil should reach New Jersey.  …

Scientists have told the DEP it is not likely the oil will reach New Jersey beaches, making it clear that for the oil slick to hit the Jersey coast, “it would require a sequence of unlikely events.’’

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been the lead agency in dealing with the situation nationally, providing daily briefings to New Jersey and other states that could be affected by the spill. But Commissioner Martin has directed the special Gulf Spill Team to create a unique model of the potential course of the oil for New Jersey.

“We want to gather the best scientific data available to help guide us,’’ said Commissioner Martin. “We have to be fully prepared to protect the interests and residents of this state. But we expect, at this point, that our beaches will be open and we’ll have a great summer season in New Jersey.’’

Martin’s press release both exaggerated the threat (in conflict with scientific advice) and created a misleading appearance of aggressive regulatory oversight by DEP at NJ facilities and in oil/chemical accident spill prevention and response.

Worse, the press statement has at least 3 glaring conflicts with Martin’s own policy:

1) Need for precaution and strict environmental regulations

If nothing else, the Gulf oil spill shines a bright light on what happens when lax regulation, cozy relationships between regulators and  industry, and an emphasis on cutting costs and maximizing economic production prevails.

Taken together, this is an industry dominated and economically driven culture.

It represents the opposite of a precautionary policy (e.g. first do no harm – when in doubt, err on the side of safety) and strong regulatory culture, which views regulated industry as an adversary, not a “customer”.

Governor Christie and Commissioner Martin have pushed exactly the same policy agenda and culture that created the BP oil blowout. Today’s press release does nothing to alter that reality.

The DEP Transition Report called for DEP “to do less with less“. From then on, it only got worse. 

On his first day in office, the Governor issued a series of Executive Orders that elevated cost benefit analysis to at least the equivalent of  environmental and health protection. It also put industry in the driver’s seat to block regulations they oppose as too costly or burdensome. 

Lt. Governor Gudagno’s “Red Tape Review Report” and Martin targeted DEP and demonized environmental “red tape“. Martin blasted DEP culture and blamed DEP for the economic and budget crises. Martin repeatedly has demanded that DEP culture must change and treat industry – including the oil industry – as customers, not adversaries.

But now, Martin claims he’s not willing “to take any chances“.

If Martin wants to learn the lessons of the Gulf disaster and protect the Jersey Shore and Delaware Bay, he need look no further than his own back yard, which is home to major oil refineries and chemical plants that are accidents waiting to happen. 

Martin surely knows that the BP Gulf oil well blowout was preceed by a deadly 2005 Texas oil refinery fire – the same thing could happen here.

Martin needs to stop coddling the oil and chemical  industries as “customers” and ramp up regulatory oversight and enforcement.

2)  Need for State role and more stringent state standards than federal minimums.

While under most environmental laws, State’s can act to go beyond federal minumums, but for the most part, federal regulators are in charge in the Gulf.

But the Gulf blowout exposed lax federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry, which has been compounded by a less than aggressive federal spill and cleanup response effort, where BP has been allowed to call the shots.

State and local concerns have ben given short shrift in the BP dominated federal response.

Martin repeatedly has emphasized the need for “waivers” from compliance with strict NJ State regulation to promote economic development (waivers are mandated by EO#2). He has said there is little need for DEP to go beyond federal minimums (adoption of federal standards and federal consistency reviews are mandated by EO#2).

But now, Martin apparently sees the light. Martin now recognizes the need for strong and independent state regulatory power and the need to go beyond federal minimums.

Yet, under an industry supported policy seeking federal consistency so that NJ can be economically competitive,  Governor Christie’s Executive Order #2 (as well as pending legislation backed by the Administration) would rollback NJ’s strict regulations in favor of a federal minimums.   

3) Role of independent public science   

Martin now realizes that an independed scientific capability to support government decisions - free of regulated oil industry bias – is key.

Yet, Martin just appointed an industry dominated and biased Science Advisory Board.

And Martin recently over-rode the recommendatrions of his own scientists in abandoning a proposed drinking water standard for perchlorate.

As I said, the contadictions between Martin’s press release on the gulf spill and his policy are just too great.

As we move forward, which will prevail? the precautionary rhetoric in today’s press release – or the rollback policies  in Christie’s Executive Orders and Red Tape Review Report ?

[Update: the Governor's spokesman's comments in the Star Ledger article on the protest reveal a dangerous arrogance. 

The governor’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, said the protesters are "blinded by their own rhetoric and are on the wrong side of history."

So the Christie administration views itself as "history's actors" ? Those remarks echo the ignorant hubris of the Bush Administration. Recall the killer NY Times Sunday Magazine story "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush" that nailed the Bush fatal flaw with this famous quote:

The [Bush] aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Christie is NJ’s George Bush – creating his own false reality. Ideological. Ignorant. Arrogant – but with a bullying mean streak even frat boy Bush couldn’t match.]

Better Choices for NJ held a protest today in Trenton against the several assaults by the Christie Administration on public institutions and public employees, particularly on public education and those most in need. Better Choices’ position:

The FY 2011 budget cuts millions of dollars from critical services that working families rely on. New Jersey’s economic crisis is too severe to rely on cuts alone. We call on our legislators to adopt a balanced approach that includes fair, fiscally responsible revenue solutions to protect vital services and invest in our future. 

Some photo’s – large crowd, estimated at over 30,000, largest in NJ history – and I got some lemonaide! (interview starts at time 2:57).

 

During the gubernatorial campaign, candidate Christie promised to reduce air pollution from diesel trucks (specifcally, per the NJ Environmental Federation, who endorsed Christie, “an Executive Order to reduce killer diesel soot pollution“).

More recently, Christie’s  DEP Commisisoner Bob Martin has made public statements that DEP would act to reduce serious public health risk of diesel truck pollution (specifically “implement a program to accelerate the retrofit of diesel engines“)

To the contrary, DEP caved in to the demands of the trucking lobby and abandoned an important ban on truck idling.

The Bergen Record reports today: Truckers can run engines while they sleep, state says

Truck drivers will be allowed to keep their engines running while they sleep in the back of their cabs for at least one more year under a recent move by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

A ban on almost all truck idling was expected to begin this month as the DEP tries to curb air pollution. But the agency, at the request of transportation officials, the state police and trucking groups, determined there were not enough alternatives for drivers to stay warm in cold weather and cool in warm weather other than running their engines.

“We wanted to be fair to the trucking industry,” Larry Ragonese, a DEP spokesman, said.

What about fairness to the people of NJ who are forced to breath toxic diesel fumes?

Read DEP’s own health assesment of the huge impacts of diesel pollution – click on these links:

[Update 3: 10/2/10: more from Bergen Record:  Feds Recommend Superfund for Garfield Chromium Contamination 

Update 2 : 10/1/10- we were unfortunately right about the risks from this site: Bergen Record Feds Issue Public Health Advisory in Garfield

Update 1: media coverage - NJ TV 12 story  and CBS NY TV story]

I just got home from a public hearing tonight in Garfield, NJ where toxic heavy metal chromium has been found in  the basements of homes and a local school, at levels EPA decribed as “very harmful” to the health of the residents that live there.

It is unclear at this time exactly how many homes are poisoned, but today’s Bergen Record reported only 16 (a number I am sure is far too low). See the Record story:  Carcinogen found in 16 Garfield homes

Harmful levels of a cancer-causing chemical that has polluted groundwater in a Garfield neighborhood for more than 25 years have been found in the basements of 16 homes, officials said Wednesday. …

The state Department of Environmental Protection began monitoring the chromium spill, but in 1985 it agreed it would be prohibitively expensive to continue the cleanup and instead suggested the company monitor the chromium levels beneath its plant. The company failed to do so, according to DEP records.

So again we see many years of gross mismangement at DEP that resulted in people getting exposed and poisoned in their own homes.

DEP has known about the contamination since 1983 (27 years) , but made a decision (without the Garfield community’s knowledge or approval) that it was “prohibitively expensive” to cleanup the pollution, thus sacrificing people’s lives to industry profits.

Again we see a total DEP failure to enforce cleanup laws. And again DEP failed to notify or warn people of the risks – and as a result again people lose all trust in DEP.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen the same story played out across dozens of NJ towns. The most recent is in nearby Pompton Lakes.

When will the managers at DEP be held accountable for this? When will DEP begin to enforce cleanup laws and force polluters to cleanup?

How many people have to get sick and die before things change?   

At tonite’s hearing, when I pressed EPA scientists to quantify what a “very harmful” cancer risk is, they indicated that the risk in sampled homes was 2 in 1,000, or 2,000 TIMES higher than the acceptable risk under NJ laws, which is 1 in a million.

The chromium contamination problem appears to have been created by an industrial site known as EC Eletroplating, where a 1983 spill polluted groundwater with toxic chromium.  Additional pollution sources are suspected, but EPA refused to identify them at tonight’s hearing. EPA was given the case by NJDEP, after many years of failure by DEP to enforce NJ state cleanup laws.

I  can’t write about the complete story tonight – I am exhausted – but will provide additional information after I get a chance to review the documents distributed tonight. These documents include a site history, the DHSS risk assessment and DHSS Health Consultation.

My over-all take – based only on the power point presentation tonight –  was that the EPA and DHSS again downplayed the community  health risks, and thus mislead the community. Both EPA and DHSS refused to admit that mistakes were made or assign accountability for mistakes made. And they both again failed to acknowledge the mistakes that have been made at this site by the NJ DEP, who has known about the problems since 1983, 27 years!

Martin must be asked about the purpose of involvement in standards review group

According to a May 7 DEP briefing of the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin has taken an interest in an internal DEP Workgroup to examine all current environmental standards, including drinking water, surface water quality, ground water quality, and soil cleanup standards.

Signaling heightened concerns with standards, DEP recently posted on its website – for the first time – an “electronic compendium” of all standards “currently in effect“. Having all standards and their scientific basis in one spot is very useful, but it also provides a big target.

Martin’s intervention in the standards work group is headed by DEP Deputy Commissioner Irene Kropp.

Kropp, as Assistant Commissioner for Site Remediation under the Corzine Administration, presided over the privatization of DEP’s toxic site cleanup program under the controversial “Licensed Site Professionals” law enacted by the legislature last year. That law was strongly opposed by environmental groups.

Historically, Kropp’s Site Remediation Program (SRP) has waged internal battles with DEP scientists who conduct risk assessments and develop soil, surface water, wildlife, and groundwater standards.

Sympathizing with their “customers”, SRP managers have long viewed many DEP standards as too costly, too stringent, and a barrier to cleanup of contaminated sites. Other DEP managers, avoiding controversy, have taken steps to gag DEP scientists on risk assessment and standards related issues.

Reflecting internal opposition and industry pressure, DEP recently has delayed, weakened or abandoned several proposed standards, including: 1) wildife criteria for PCBs, mercury and pesticides; 2) impact to groundwater cleanup standards; 3) vapor intrusion standards; 4) chromium soil standards (and this too); 5) PFOA risk assessment; 6) fine particulates, hazardous air pollutants; and most recently, 7) a perchlorate drinking water standard.

So, Kropp’s control of this standards review workgroup is an ominous sign.

Despite the fact that Commissioner Martin has publicly acknowledged the work of select “stakeholder groups” to review various DEP programs (in private meetings that are industry dominated and closed to the public and press), Martin has made no public mention of the internal standards review process.

To the contrary, Martin has publicly stated – numerous times – that he has no plans to weaken standards, but only seeks to streamline the process.

Similarly, the Red Tape Review Group Report blocked 12 DEP rules, effectively killed a drinking water standard, and targeted 15 additional rules, but the Report did not explicitly target any current DEP environmental standards.

Commissioner Bob Martin has testified to the Legislature 4 times over the last 90 days, and never mentioned any internal DEP standards review.

Perhaps standards review will be the first task of Martin’s new Science Advisory Board (but that is pure speculation).

The quiet high level management intervention in an internal technical DEP standards group contradicts the administration’s public statements about their regulatory policy and is deeply troubling. It also underscores the claims by environmental advocates (and yours truly) that the Christie/Martin agenda is to rollback NJ’s tough regulatory protections.

NJ’s regulated industries have long challenged DEP standards as too stringent, too costly, and not based on “sound science”. Industry argues – without supporting evidence and contrary to much credible economic analysis – that DEP’s tough standards have destroyed thousands of NJ manufacturing jobs and discouraged new investment.

Governor Christie has bought that argument and used it as justification for his  Executive Order #2 , which established so called “common sense regulatory principles”. EO #2 requires that all new and readopted regulatory standards must be justified by a cost-benefit analysis and seeks to make NJ consistent with weaker federal minimums.

EO #2 also changed the way regulations are adopted, by requiring the agencies prepare “advance notice of rules” in order “to prevent unworkable, overly-proscriptive or ill-advised rules from being adopted.” This new process is designed to allow industry lobbyists expanded behind the scenes political access to kill onerous rules via the Lt. Governor’s “Regulatory Czar” Office.

DEP Commissioner Martin has repeatedly cited the need for “waivers” and additional flexibility from strict regulatory requirements, including environmental standards. Martin has personally criticized the DEP science supporting standards.

So there are multiple indicators on pending rollback of DEP environmental standards.

Commissioner Martin needs to be asked hard questions about the purpose of this standards review group which has been confirmed on the record at a public hearing by one of his own staff, a longtime DEP manager.

Following up on what I wrote on Wednesday, both the Senate and Assembly Environment Committees did in fact “invite” DEP Commissioner Bob Martin to testify on Thursday about “the state’s environmental priorities for 2010″, and he did testify.

But I was way wrong when I wrote:

“This is diplomatic code for oversight hearings on the Christie Administration’s environmental policy. [...]

It is vital that these hearings result in real substantive oversight of Martin’s policies, and not become another platform for the same Kabuki Martin offered during confirmation and budget hearings.

No, you see, despite almost 5 months of Christie Administration attacks on core environmental and public health protections I’ve documented here in depth, and many questions submitted by the public to the Committee, according to Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith, the purpose of the Senate meeting was not for Senators to ask questions and conduct legislative oversight of this assault, but:

“to get to know each other“

Right.

Things got a little better in Martin’s afternoon session before the Assembly, where Chairman McKeon and some members actually asked Martin questions and expressed support for several major environmental initiatives.

It is tough to find a silver political cloud in this spineless debacle, but both Committee Chairmen did express a desire for input, a concern about Martin’s “stakeholder meetings”, and will  conduct continuing “oversight”.

Both Chairmen invited Martin back to testify about his upcoming “strategic plan” and “transformation agenda” for DEP. The Senate will meet again on June 3 and Martin will be back.

Oh Boy I can’t wait for that! Bet it’ll be a real showdown! No more Dems keeping their powder dry!

Right.

In terms of the hearing  itself, I won’t repeat Martin’s testimony (you can listen here), but a couple of things did jump out:

1) “Turning over rocks at DEP”

Amazingly, Martin claimed “to be candid” that he learned about the year old Oyster Creek radioactive tritium leak by calls from Asbury Park Press reporter Todd Bates, and a meeting 2 weeks ago with shore legislators, not from DEP staff.

While Martin previously stated this in a May 7 press release and I wrote about it at the time, I thought that, upon reflection, this would be viewed as a mistake by the press office. I was shocked that Martin repeated that story in testimony.

Why would Martin want to public notice the embarrassing fact that he doesn’t seem to know what’s going on in his own agency?

The Oyster Creek leak occurred in April 2009. DEP Commissioner Mauriello weighed in on the issue in writing. So this issue was not buried in the bowels of the DEP bureaucracy.

Martin has met with Exelon corporate people. Martin has publicly discussed Oyster Creek cooling tower issues. Martin was involved in weeks of transition briefings. Martin was a member of the Governor’s Red Tape Review Group that did a “top to bottom” review of DEP. Martin claims he is an energy policy wonk and adviser to the Governor.

So one would assume that Martin has been briefed on all facets of Oyster Creek’s operations.

My guess is that it is a cover story and designed to provide an excuse (”really? I didn’t know THAT”!) and blame DEP staffers for his management failures.

Dodging accountability probably is why Martin emphasized and repeatedly made the claim that he was “turning over rocks at DEP“.

Is Martin suggesting that DEP staffers are intentionally withholding information from him? Gaslighting him? Sandbagging him?

I know the professionals in the DEP radiological program and their management reports are perhaps the most rigorous in DEP. It is inconceivable that they did not fully brief Martin on this issue in the months since his DEP involvement.

Martin’s claim that he heard of the leak from reporter Todd Bates and shore legislators is simply not credible and another slap in the face to DEP scientists.

I also have worked on two transition teams (Florio and Corzine) and at the Commissioner’s level at DEP for several years. I can personally attest that a new Commissioner would have been fully briefed on an issue of the magnitude of Oyster Creek tritium leak.

And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also disputes Martin’s claims (see this)

Martin looks like a classic “kiss up – kick down” kind of guy.

2) Expand LSP Privatization Model for DEP Land Use Programs?

Senator Gordon (D-Bergen) really surprised me by suggesting that the controversial toxic site cleanup Licensed Site Professional (LSP) privatization model be expanded into DEP land use permitting programs.

That is a really bad idea that actually goes beyond the radical assault of the Christie Transition Report.

The Senator’s constituents and Trenton ENGO lobbyists need to tell him to drop that foolishness now.

3)  Who is Senator Back listening to?

The newest member of the Senate Environment Committee is Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth). I have heard good things about her that suggest she is a moderate strongly pro-environment republican. Beck is a new member, who can’t be expected to be up to speed on complex environmental laws and issues. And it is refreshing to have a legislator acknowledge that they don’t know everything and ask questions that challenge lobbyists and fellow legislators to defend and explain their ideas.

But I was dumbfounded by several of her statements (”I don’t know anything about this light pollution issue, but as a woman I feel unsafe at Mall parking lots because the lighting is too dim” and “road lighting is too dim hard to see“).

I was surprised by some of her premises and questions, which revealed a lack of preparation and that she had been listening intently to business lobbyists but not environmentalists (e.g. Beck didn’t know the basics of renewable energy – e.g. what NJ’s Renewable Portfolio Standards or Societal Benefits Charges et al were,  but she did express concerns about preventing business and industry from subsidizing solar power in electric rates and she did “know” that the Chemical industry lobbyists told her that NJ had lost over 60,000 chemical manufacturing jobs as a result of high energy costs (hey – didn’t Hal Bozarth of Chemistry Council testify last week that DEP regulations had killed all those manufacturing jobs?).

4) Chairman McKeon tried – but not valiantly!

In fairness, the Assembly hearing was much better than the Senate, in terms of asking questions and expressing support for  several environmental programs. McKeon expressed concerns and/or asked Martin about his policy and plans for the following:

a) over $400 million cuts of DEP Global Warming program, regional green house gas auction, and clean energy funds;

b) Highlands, including push back on exaggerated claims of failure to compensate landowners (noted only 16 TDR application filed for less than 500 acres) and Martin’s plans for the septic density standards;

c) Renewal plans and permanent stable source of funding for open space;

The only policy questions of the day came from Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) who asked about Executive Order #2 policy regarding federal standards an environmental justice policy

5) Will someone please tell Bob Martin that DEP’s mission includes protection of Public Health and does not include promotion of economic development?

Martin again failed to include protection of public health in DEP’s mission.

He limited DEP’s mission to protecting the environment and natural resources.

Yet, while ignoring public health, he repeated his policy that DEP mission is to promote economic development.

Martin needs to be told this – who will take on this educational challenge?