Archive

Archive for May, 2010

Cancer Risks in Garfield Homes More than 2,000 Times Allowable Risk

May 20th, 2010 2 comments
About 175 residetns turn out to demand answers about health risks from toxic chromium found in homes and school

About 175 residents turn out to demand answers about health risks from toxic chromium found in  homes and school

[Update 3: 10/2/10: more from Bergen RecordFeds 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 described 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 mismanagement 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!

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Environmental Standards Undergoing Internal DEP Review – Red Flag Rollback Threat

May 18th, 2010 5 comments

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 standardscurrently 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.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Dems Say Oversight Not the Purpose of Martin Kabuki

May 15th, 2010 No comments

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.

Senate Environment Committee Chariman, Bob Smith (D-Middlesex) - "let's get to know each other"

Senate Environment Committee Chairman, Bob Smith (D-Middlesex) - "let's get to know each other"

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

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin gets a laugh at Senate Environment Committee hearing. It was all fun and games as he was given a pass.

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin gets a laugh at Senate Environment Committee hearing. It was all fun and games as he was given a pass.

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 Bob Gordon (D-Bergen) - seeking expanded privatization at DEP?

Senator Bob Gordon (D-Bergen) - seeking expanded privatization at DEP?

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?

Senator Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) enjoys the hearing.

Senator Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) enjoys the hearing.

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!

Assembly Chairman John McKeon (D-Essex) - making a list and checking it twice!

Assembly Chairman John McKeon (D-Essex) - making a list and checking it twice!

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?



Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Dupont and Polluters’ Consultants Named to DEP Science Board

May 14th, 2010 No comments

DEP Commissioner Bob Martin just announced members of the controversial new Science Advisory Board (SAB) created by former Commissioner Lisa Jackson.

In a blatant attempt to manage the news coverage and prevent any public debate over industry influence on the SAB candidate selection process,  Martin’s press release announcement came just hours before the deadline in a Court Order. In response to a successful PEER lawsuit, the Superior Court directed DEP to release documents today regarding behind the scenes industry influence to lobby for industry representatives on the SAB.

Brian Murray of The Star Ledger continued coverage of the story: NJ. Department of Environmental Protection unveils appointments to Science Advisory Board

See below for PEER press release that outlines the story and provides links to all the documents.

News Releases

For Immediate Release: May 14, 2010
Contact: Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

JERSEY RUSHES SCIENCE BOARD NAMES TO BEAT COURT ORDER — DEP Science Advisory Board Studded with Industry Employees and Consultants

Trenton — Rushing to beat a superior court deadline to turn over documents of an industry lobbying campaign to pack a new Science Advisory Board, yesterday afternoon the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced its 16 selections. Under a superior court order won by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) pursuant to the state Open Public Records Act, today DEP must surrender industry sponsorship letters and other behind-the-scenes communications to persuade the agency to pick its favored candidates,.

The stakes for industry are huge. In late 2008, former DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson abolished the Division of Science and Research, based in part on a recommendation of her Permit Efficiency Task Force. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is supposed to substitute for the work formerly done by DEP scientists. The SAB will give industry a seat at the table to determine what and how science is used to support tighter regulation of chemicals and pollutants – decisions carrying multi-million dollar implications for affected corporations.

In the months following Jackson’s action there has been an intense lobbying scrum as powerful industrial interests, such as DuPont and the New Jersey Chemistry Council, worked to sway first Corzine appointees and later Christie officials to make industry-friendly SAB appointments. DEP fought to keep these lobbying efforts secret, denying a PEER public records request on the spurious grounds that information about pending Board appointments is analogous to job applicant forms and thus confidential, even though SAB members would not be DEP employees and would be unpaid. PEER sued DEP on September 29, 2009 for violating the Open Public Records Act. On February 18, 2010, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg brushed aside DEP’s legal position as without merit and ordered the agency to provide the SAB materials to PEER. The documents are to be turned over to PEER this morning.

The newly named Science Advisory Board has DuPont employees and industry consultants in key slots. Perhaps to buffer anticipated criticism, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin enlarged the original 12-member SAB to 16 members, adding four academic scientists. According to DEP, the SAB was created to do provide external objective scientific guidance.

“The concern is that this outside board will be more of a venue for exercises in political science rather than environmental science,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, who sought the records. “For example, DuPont employees should never have been selected because they have huge economic interests in DEP science that backs drinking water standards, like PFOA and other toxics.” .

The Board includes subcommittees on water, ecological function, public health and climate change.

“There are no enforceable safeguards against industry using the Science Advisory Board to inject influence and otherwise delay, weaken, or derail DEP regulatory science, particularly risk assessments are used to set strict health standards and costly industry regulations,” Wolfe added. “The secrecy surrounding the selection process only reinforces our concerns.”

###

Read DEP press release from yesterday afternoon

See the successful PEER suit to force disclosure of industry lobbying

Look at DuPont lobbying to weaken state PFOA scientific findings

Examine pattern of industry pressure to alter state eco-science

View the SAB charter and guidelines

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

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

DEP Commissioner Martin Called to Testify Tomorrow

May 12th, 2010 No comments

[Update 5/13/10: here is my pre-hearing setup post on similar 2008 Lisa Jackson “priorities” check out the top 10 issues. And here is the post hearing coverage of Jackson’s performance]

Both the Senate and Assembly Environment Committees have “invited” DEP Commissioner Bob Martin to testify tomorrow about “the state’s environmental priorities for 2010″.

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

I have written about numerous aspects of that policy here for months and several issues have been covered in the news media as well. And there is a track record from the Administration itself, including:

1) the Transition Reports (see this and this and this)

2) the Executive Orders (see this and this)

3) the Red Tape Review Report (see this and this)

4) the budget (see this and this)

5) actual DEP decisions (e.g. request for stay in the Highlands septic density Farm Bureau litigation; killing the perchlorate drinking water standard; ongoing “stakeholder” meetings; DEP reorganization; Administrative Order extending WQMP implementation; limiting public access to the shore, running away from Oyster Creek cooling tower commitment, pending appointments to the DEP Science Advisory Board, et al).

6) dangerous rollback legislation moving

So there is no shortage of information out there.

It is critically important that both Chairmen and Committee members hear support for strong environmental protection from the public (and not just the usual Trenton suspects) so they can understand the many issues now engaged by the Christie Administration and where we think they are going (in the wrong direction).

These are the environmental committees, so we have an expectation of some leadership, issue advocacy, and oversight accountability.

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.

For information and positive alternatives, see: Ten Questions the Senate Should Ask Martin and Metrics for Martin and Senate Dems Blast Christie Global Warming Cuts and DEP’s Abandonment of Perchlorate Drinking Water Standard

It is also very important that the pretexts that the economic recession and fiscal crisis require environmental rollbacks not be allowed to be asserted without some pushback and demand for supporting evidence.

It is also important that the hearings interrogate the repeated claims that the Administration is committed to strong environmental standards and protections, but is merely “reducing red tape” and “streamlining the bureaucracy”.

Here are links to the Committee membership and contact info:

Senate Environment and Energy (10:00 am)

Assembly Environment and Solid Waste (2:00 pm)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: