Florio Lets Liability Cat Out of the Bag

EPA must stand by Regional Administrator Enck’s commitment and their own science and reject the Dupont proposal.

sun sets on mercury laced Pompton Lake (1/5/12)

Dupont has a big mercury problem in Pompton Lakes, NJ (in addition to the cancer cluster and vapor intrusion).

Scientifically and legally, the problem is similar to General Electric’s (GE) problem with dumping toxic and bioaccumulative PCB’s in the Hudson River, where, according to EPA:

From approximately 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its capacitor manufacturing plants at the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities into the Hudson River.

That GE dumping poisoned 200 miles of the Hudson River, leading EPA to declare that portion of the River a Superfund site and forcing GE to cleanup the river at a cost of over $500 million.

Like GE, for almost 100 years, Dupont used and disposed of mercury compounds at their explosives manufacturing facility.

Like GE, mercury air emissions and mercury dumping on the Dupont site have led to significant off site releases, so that soils and sediments along the the Acid Brook, Pompton Lake, and natural resource and the downriver region are poisoned.

fish consumption warning posted on Pompton Lake

Mercury is highly toxic to humans, fish and wildlife – it bioaccumulates through the food chain. Its effects are magnified by predators up the food chain and persist for many years.

Like in the the Hudson River, because of mercury  pollution, it is unsafe to eat freshwater fish in NJ – and consumption warnings are posted on Pompton Lake (but largely ignored).

Dupont wiped out an entire fishery.

And like Hudson River PCB’s, EPA has extensive national scientific and regulatory experience with mercury in the Great lakes region that is relevant to Dupont Pompton Lakes.

Like GE, Dupont wants to minimize the cost of cleanup and resists EPA cleanup mandates.

I don’t know about GE/Hudson, but in Pompton lakes, EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck has given the community multiple assurances that EPA will hold Dupont accountable and strictly enforce environmental laws. For example, in an October 14, 2010 reply letter, RA Enck assured me that:

You have my commitment that the Environmental Protection Agency will ensure that Dupont will fulfill its RCRA obligations for this facility.

But Dupont has proposed a partial cleanup plan of just a 26 acre portion of the 250 acre Pompton Lake – no downriver sediment removal is being considered at this time. Dozens of areas of toxic soil contamination on the Dupont site still have not been cleaned up (after 30 years).

The plan is not only for only a small part of the Lake, but it is based on flawed science.

The Dupont plan must be approved by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the most important environmental law you probably never even heard of (and the polluters like it that way).

But now the Dupont plan is in EPA’s lap, which in some ways makes Dupont’s mercury problem EPA’s problem too.

Was Dupont’s plan reviewed and approved by EPA’s national scientific experts on mercury and USFWS scientists? Here’s why we need to know answers to those questions:

I)  Florio Lets the Liability Cat Out of the Bag

Jim Florio, sponsor of 1980 Superfund law, speaks at community rally (1/5/12)

The residents of Pompton Lakes want the site designated and cleaned up by EPA under the Superfund program.

Thus far, their primary reasons for wanting Superfund instead of RCRA is that Superfund would bring more federal resources, a higher priority and visibility, and more community involvement in cleanup decisions.

But Jim Florio, Former NJ Governor and original sponsor of the 1980 Superfund law, just let the legal liability cat out of the bag.

The Superfund liability scheme adds another very good reason to use Superfund to compel Dupont to conduct a comprehensive and complete cleanup of the entire site, Pompton Lake, and downriver and compensate the public for huge natural resource and ecological damages they have caused (just like GE in the Hudson).

Florio went out of his way to emphasize that under Superfund, the legal liability scheme is known as “strict, joint, and several”.

Practically, what this legalese essentially means is that:

• Dupont is 100% on the hook for the ENTIRE problem
• EPA does not have to prove negligence  by Dupont
• EPA has enormous power to force Dupont to do a complete cleanup.

This is key because mercury pollution comes from multiple sources: coal power plants, garbage incinerators, and smelters and industrial sources.

Dupont is arguing that they are responsible ONLY for the mercury they allegedly contributed – and only via Acid Brook runoff, NOT THE TOTAL HISTORIC MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS FROM THE DUPONT PLANT AND ALL ON SITE DISPOSAL PRACTICES.

EPA has agreed to this bogus Dupont argument and that is why only a 6 inch deep small 26 acre portion of the 250 acre Lake (the “Acid Brook Delta”) sediments are being dredged.

Dupont could not get away with that under Superfund.

While it is true that EPA has less legal leverage under RCRA that Superfund, EPA still could do the right thing by forcing Dupont to scientifically establish how much mercury came from their facility and how much came from other sources.

But Dupont has not done any of that kind of work and EPA therefore has no scientific basis upon which to approve the plan. (and that’s just EPA’s problem #1)

II)  Dupont’s Science is Flawed and Can Not Be Approved BY EPA

EPA has done an enormous amount of scientific work on mercury.

In contrast with this rigorous EPA body of work, Dupont’s various regulatory documents rely on cursory and flawed science and assessment methods.

These flawed Dupont approaches provide the basis for the Dupont partial Acid Brook Delta cleanup plan and ecological assessment.

Dupont’s science and methods are inconsistent with, do not meet the rigorous standards of, and contradict EPA science. [Update: See

• EPA Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical Guidance
• EPA Region 8 Ecological Risk Characterization
• ASTM Method E1706 ]

As such, EPA can not approve of them by approving a cleanup plan based on them.

The primary EPA scientific sources for mercury, for our purposes are (there are lots others):

• EPA Report to Congress
• EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of Mercury Air Toxics Standard
• EPA Great lakes Mercury Initiative

(examples of additional studies of scientific and regulatory relevance are the

• NOAA Report to Congress on Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes
• various US Fish and Wildlife Service bird studies and fish studies and
• the 1996 Biological Opinion of the USFWS NJ Field Office
• NJ DEP’s 2002 proposed “wildlife criteria” SWQS for mercury
• EPA’s letter of support of the NJ DEP proposed SWQS wildlife criteria

Compared with the EPA Recommendations to Congress on ecologically protective mercury fish tissue levels, fish in Pompton lakes contain 2 – 10 TIMES safe levels.

Depending on trophic level of the fish, the EPA finding is 0.077 ppm – 0.346 ppm.

According to DEP, the fish in Pompton Lake average 0.72 ug/g (ppm).

[Update: A May 6, 2008 DEP email to Dupont specifically addressed this issue:

in order to present a balanced comparison, DuPont shall compare the average concentrations of mercury in largemouth bass from Pompton Lake to the regional average of 0.46 ug/g mercury in largemouth bass and/or the statewide average (0.44 ug/g) in the Remedial Investigation Report.

Judith Enck, EPA region 2 Administrator came to NJ to warns residents about risks of eating contaminated fish from waters nearby toxic sites

Additionally, Dupont’s ecological risk analysis is flawed, as it relies too heavily on alleged no impacts on the benthic (bottom) macroinvertebrate community structure. Community structure is a poor indicator of bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and ecological risk that I haven’t seen used anywhere else. And even if you were looking at macro invertebrates, you would be doing so to consider food chain bioaccumulation, so you would look at tissue concentration of mercury, not community structure.

[Update: I may have misread the Dupont documents on this point - macro-invertibrate community structure is of relevance, and YOY fish are trophic indicator in food web design - see Mercury Cycling in Stream Ecosystems. 3. Trophic Dynamics and Methylmercury Bioaccumulation - Where Dupont draws misleading conclusion is with this assertion:

However, tissue concentrations measured in the delta in 2005 do not indicate an increased accumulation of mercury by chironomids and YOY fish tissue relative to the tissue data collected during the 1998 ecological investigation. - end update]

[Update 2 - Here is what I meant to say, as provided by DEP's Ecological Evaluation Guidance says about limitations of macro invertebrate sampling:

Some limitations are that they do not identify the contaminant responsible for the observed toxicity, population impacts are not readily translated into contaminant remediation goals, and results are often confounded by variables not related to contaminant toxicity (predation, seasonal differences, physicochemical sediment characteristics, food availability).]

Similarly, Dupont sampled “young of year” (YOY) fish, which minimizes bioaccumulation as young fish haven’t lived long enough to bioaccumulate the mercury in the system.

Here are additional serious flaws in Dupont’s analysis:

1) I didn’t see anything in Dupont’s documents concerning terrestrial mammals

2) There was no data or discussion of the bird sampling – other than a cursory claim of low/no adverse impact on 4 of 5 bird species sampled. What bird species? What tissue (or egg shell) concentrations found? What adverse impacts were considered?

3) There was no discussion of biological mechanisms that convert mercury they propose to leave in the sediments into bioavailable forms.

4) There was no data provided or consideration given to Dupont’s historic use of mercury compounds in manufacture.

5) There was no data or estimate of Dupont’s mercury air emissions and how those emissions deposited locally.

6) There was no dating or chemical analysis of soil or sediment cores that would suggest historic patterns of mercury deposition.

7) The full extent of mercury deposition and off-site release from the Dupont facility has not be adequately characterized.

There was no valid characterization of “mercury background”.

[According to the USEPA, background refers to constituents that are not influenced by the discharges from a site, and is usually described as naturally occurring or anthropogenic (USEPA, 2002a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002a. "Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[ According to NJ DEP Ecological Evaluation Guidance:

Background area samples should be collected from an area outside the site’s potential influence and not in locations directly influenced by or in proximity to other obvious sources of contamination.

9) There was no data provided to support apportionment of mercury in the environment as Dupont alleges to minimize their cleanup obligations (i.e. Dupont share and other source share).

10) There was no data or estimate sof total mercury loading;  mechanisms and estimates of methylation; fate/transport modeling; bioaccumulation mechanisms; and human and wildlife exposure and risk assessments from air emissions, contaminated soil, surface water runoff of mercury disposed on site.

I assume that some of this data and analysis were provided in the original ecological assessment submitted to NJ DEP in accordance with State cleanup regulations (and rubber stamped by DEP's broken cleanup program).

[Full disclosure Update: in 1995, a former NJ Governor, with DEP's help, was shown to misrepresent the science on mercury in fish tissue to downplay risks - when I disclosed this scheme, management retaliated and I was forced out of DEP as a whistle-blower. Hit that link for all the documentation.]

Lois Gibbs speaks at community rally (1/5/12)

However, this is an EPA federal RCRA action that must be EPA approved. Accordingly,  all the documents must be made available to the public during the comment period. That has not been done in this case so EPA can not approve the Dupont plan based on documents and analyses that have not been made publicly available.

III)  EPA is Required to Consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service

RCRA regulations require EPA to consult with federal agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the RCRA permit process.

We advised EPA Regional Administrator Enck on November 17, 2011 that RCRA regulations include full federal partner review including, but not limited to, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, pursuant to regulation 40 CFR 124.10(c)(iii).

Certainly such consultation is required BEFORE EPA issues a “tentative approval” and proposes a draft RCRA permit for public comment.

Thus far, it appears that EPA has not complied with these consultation requirements prior to issuing the draft permit.

IV)  Dupont is Required to Comply with Clean Water Act Standards

The federal Clean Water Act applies to Dupont’s water pollution discharges.

The CWA also applies to the RCRA permit process, which must meet CWA requirements.

NJ DEP State surface water quality standards (SWQS) have been approved by EPA and are federally enforceable. They trigger enforceable requirements on pollution discharge that may “cause or contribute to” a violation of a SWQS.

NJ DEP SWQS designate Pompton Lake for recreational use (fishing, swimming,etc), aquatic life protections, and water supply.

The SWQS have policies and narrative and numeric standards that the RCRA permit and Dupont clean up must comply with.

The Dupont proposed cleanup plan provides no discussion or demonstration regarding compliance with the legally applicable and binding provisions of the CWA or NJ SWQS.

Accordingly, EPA can not approve the Dupont proposal as a final RCRA permit in the absence of this compliance demonstration.

EPA must stand by their own science. According to the EPA supported NJ DEP wildlife criteria proposal. According to the DEP SWQS proposal (which USFWS and EPA supported)::

“As part of the 1994 approval of the New Jersey SWQS triennial review process, the USEPA, in collaboration with the USFWS, indicated that the human health based criteria for PCBs were not protective of the threatened and endangered species bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. As a result, the Service prepared a Biological Opinion document in 1996 (Biological opinion on the effects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the state of New Jersey’s surface water quality standards on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and dwarf wedgemussel. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey. 1996). The lack of wildlife criteria for DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs was a concern to the USFWS. DDT and its metabolites, mercury, and PCBs are bioaccumulative pollutants that are persistent in the environment, accumulate in biological tissues, and biomagnify in the food chain. Due to these characteristics, the concentration of these contaminants may increase as they are transferred up through various food chain levels. As a result, adverse impacts to non-aquatic, piscivorous (fish-eating) organisms may arise from low surface water concentrations. The peregrine falcon is not a piscivorous species. However, it feeds on other piscivorous bird species. Therefore, biomagnification may be of even greater concern for the peregrine falcon.

The USEPA developed site-specific wildlife criteria for the Great Lakes based on a number of factors, including the toxicity of various pollutants and their tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify. In addition, the USEPA gathered and applied information about piscivorous wildlife endemic to the Great Lakes region in its derivation of water quality criteria. That effort resulted in the promulgation of numeric surface water concentrations designed to be protective of all avian and mammalian wildlife using Great Lakes waters. “

EPA must  now stand by Regional Administrator Enck’s commitment and their own science and reject the Dupont proposal.

1) Dupont’s proposed cleanup of Acid Brook Delta is only partial – we demand that all mercury and all pollutants be completely and permanently cleaned up so that the Lake is fishable and swimmable as mandated by the federal Clean Water Act and NJ Water Pollution Control Act;

2) The original 1992 EPA issued RCRA permit must be enforced and has numerous loopholes that must be closed – all RCRA “SWMU’s” and off site releases which are sources of toxic soil, sediment, vapor, and groundwater contamination must be cleaned up under more aggressive schedules and obligations than those EPA unilaterally imposed in a “compliance schedule modification” on May 4, 2010 without public notice and comment;

3)  Natural resource damages and toxic fish and wildlife impacts of Dupont’s pollution have not been assessed fully and must be assessed and the public fully compensated;

4) EPA must take enforcement action and collect fines such that vapor mitigation systems are immediately installed in all impacted homes.

The plume area may be larger than currently thought, when subsurface infrastructure migration is considered.

Rally before EPA RCRA permit hearing (1/5/12)

The Senate hearing provides another opportunity for Legislators to show that they are serious about global warming, and not just playing political games.

It is simply astounding that Republicans voted “No” on party lines last week in the Assembly Environment Committee vote on A4108.

Obviously, Assemblywoman Coyle’s well heeled and highly educated Somerset County constituents know global warming is real and demand real solution, not political games. 

And we’re sure that they are willing to pay far more than 28 cents per month on their electric bill (the curent RGGI charge) to be part of the solution to the world’s climate change crisis. 

It also gives Republicans another chance to move beyond pure unprincipled partisan loyalty to Governor Christie, and show that they see global warming as more than a political football.

So we will be closely watching how Republican members Beck and Bateman vote.

And I’m not convinced yet the Democratic Chairman Bob Smith is serious in reforming the RGGI program – ironic in that Senate President Sweeney was the sponsor of the original RGGI legislation that Governor Christie has abandoned (for RGGI’s legislative history, see this and this and this and this).

So, here are 9 specific amendments that should be considered and will serve as a test of whether this Committee is serious:

Dear Chairman Smith:

Please accept this email testimony on S2946. I am providing suggested amendments in advance of the hearing, so that there is sufficient time for consideration and for OLS to draft amendments.

While I opposed RGGI from the outset, given the failure of national global warming legislation and the fact that RGGI states’ recently wrote to EPA to support using RGGI to satisfy compliance with forthcoming EPA New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions for existing sources under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act,  I support the objectives of the bill to assure that NJ remains involved in RGGI.

[Note: EPA projects that the upcoming new Clean Air Act "New Source Performance Standards" (NSPS) regulations on greenhosue gas emissions from existing coal power plants will reduce current emission by at least 10%. But RGGI would allow those emissions to increase by 10 - 30%. So if EPA adopts the state recommendations and allows RGGI to satisfy NSPS compliance,  we are talking about 20 - 40% increase in emissions from coal power plants. That is HUGE. I doubt most NJ legislators are even aware of how EPA and State actions are related.]

However, passing a bill to merely retain RGGI in its current form would be an empty gesture. RGGI must be reformed in light of 6 years experience and the forthcoming new EPA NSPS rules.

Therefore, I strongly urge you to adopt amendments to clarify and strengthen RGGI’s original objectives.

Given the Governor’s withdrawal statement and DEP’s testimong before Chairman Chivukula’s Committee, it is a virtual certainty that the Governor will veto this bill.

Therefore, it is even more important that you pass a bill that eliminates political considerations and strictly adheres to sound policy and science.

As you know, the RGGI caps are far above current electric sector emissions. When the original RGGI MOU was signed in 2005, NJ’s RGGI caps were 10% above then current emissions.

DEP testified to Chairman Chivukula’s Cmte. last week that the cap is 30% above current emissions. 

The Governor has used this fact to claim - correctly - that RGGI is ineffective in terms of changing behavior of energy producers and consumers. PSEG themselves described the affect of RGGI as “negligible” (see page 59) 

Environmentalists (i.e. NRDC and Environment NJ) testified that RGGI originally was designed to undergo an internal performance review scheduled for 2012. The expectation all along is that the generous caps would be renegotiated and lowered.

However, given the Administration’s opposition to RGGI, it would be foolish to think - even if the bill were to pass and NJ remain a part of RGGI – that the caps would be lowered via the RGGI administrative negotiating process among State Governors.

Outside intervention and legislative policy direction are required.

With that in mind, I recommend the following amendments.

1. Legislatively reduce the RGGI cap in statute to current 2010 emissions, or the most recent actual emissions monitoring data. This would lock in any emissions reductions that have been achieved and assure that emissions do not increase.

2.  Eliminate the discretionary use of “up to 100%” of revenues derived form RGGI auctions and mandate that 100% be used for the legislatively specified purposes. This would be consistent with your announced intent to Constitutionally dedicate the RGGI proceeds.

3. Delete reference to and required consistency with “the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by NJ and other states on December 20, 2005.” This would be consistent with legislatiely establishing policy and lowering the NJ emission allowances (cap).

4. Insert the year “2008″ to clarify that the Corzine Energy Master Plan goals and principles are to be considered, not the proposed changes by Governor Christie.

 5. Delete the subsidies, exemptions and loopholes of the original RGGI legislation provides to a cogeneration facility, combined heat and power, and any other “on-site generation facility”.

6. Mandate that all RGGI records shall be public records and subject to the Open Public Records Act.

7. Mandate that DEP adopt the January 20, 2009 proposed greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting rule that was killed by Governor Christie’s Executive Order moratorium (see: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/012009a.pdf

This will provide actual NJ data to base decisions on, not projections based on federal emissions factors and fuel use estimates.

8. Eliminate the $7 per ton relief valve. If we are going to have a market based trading scheme, prices should be determined by supply and demand and the market.

9. Eliminate the $2 per ton price cap for certain emission sources.Market assumptions require a level playing field between all sources.

Let me know if you’d like these proposed amendments formatted to the provisions of the current bill. I’d be glad to go over this with OLS staff.

Thank you for your favorable consideration.

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ PEER

So Why Are Her Colleagues Rolling Over To Enact Governor Christie’s Agenda?

DEP studies have found over 500 unregulated chemicals polluting NJ drinking water - but instead of requiring treatment to remove them now, Gov. Christie's DEP wants to wait decades until federal EPA develops national standards.

Democratic legislators jumped on board the Christie Administration’s “Red Tape” environmental rollback wagon yesterday, as 3 more horrible bills were released by legislative committees.

Christie and his corporate backers are shamefully using the economic recession as a pretext to attack and rollback environmental and public health protections, under the guise of slogans:  ”common sense regulatory principles” and “streamlining red tape”.  (DEP permits need to be “streamlined” to create jobs? Thousands of projects with DEP approved permits are stalled, which was the logic of the Permit Extension Act - but facts and logic dont matter).

Perhaps worse, corporate Democratic leaders seem intent on outspinning the Governor, cynically calling the rollback  bills part of a “back to work” package.

But in fact, no credible economist – none - links the recession to environmental protections. No one argues that rollbacks will create jobs.

 Just the opposite is true: 

• the recession and unemployment were caused by the bursting of an unregulated Wall Street greed driven speculative bubble;
• environmental  compliance costs are grossly exagerated by industry; 
• protections have huge public health benefits; and
• environmental protections create jobs and don’t force relocations of industry.

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) thirteenth annual Report to Congress on the benefits and costs of federal regulations:

“The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2009, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $128 billion and $616 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $43 billion and $55 billion.1” 

Revealing the true policy intent hidden by the “common sense” slogan, Christie’s own Executive Order #2 explicitly calls for ”immediate regulatory relief”.

But somehow the media (and some environmental groups) still seem incapable of reporting these facts which contradict and expose the Governor’s spin.

The bills released yesterday were based on Lt. Governor Guadagnos’ business dominated Red Tape Review Group Report. That Report attacked DEP and targeted 12 specific DEP regulations for rollback (see Appendix H).

The Report also called for major changes to the way regulations are developed in order to promote business interests. Changes would allow industry to derail, weaken and delay regulations, and increase political control over the content of regulations.

Again, the Christie Administration’s objective to rollback environmental regulation is clear. The objectives of the Red Tape Report are:

“employing a cost/benefit analysis on rules, justifying exceeding federal standards and refraining from doing so unless a New Jersey-specific policy goal is being pursued, … working to lessen burdens and compliance costs to businesses.” ( page 33) 

The controversial Red Tape bills re-emerged yesterday in obscure hearings before the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, and just days before Christmas after languishing for more than 8 months.

When the original package of bills were heard in the Assembly back in March, we wrote:

Less than 48 hours after the first “public” (by invite only) meeting of the “Red Tape Review Group” (for press coverage of that meeting, see “NJ red-tape review board gets an earful“), led by the new Regulatory Czar established by Governor Christie’s Executive Orders #1 (imposing a moratorium on certain regualtions) and EO#2 ( establishing “common sense” regulatory policies including cost benefit analysis and rollback to federal minimums) and EO #3 ( creating the Red Tape Review Group) today an Assembly Regulatory Oversight Committee rammed through a dangerous bill to gut enforcement of a broad array of DEP public health and environmental protections.

When the second round of bills was heard in Assemblyman Burzichelli’s Committee, later in March,we warned about the sinister influence of “murderers row”:

Murderers Row: (L-R) Hal Bozarth (Chemistry Council); Lobbyist (Farm Bureau); Michael Engenton (Chamber of Commerce); & Dave Brogan (NJ Business and Industry Assc.). Jim Benton NJ Petroleum Council (rear) looks on from the shadows.

Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) has been a leader in resisting the Christie rollbacks and defending environmental and public health protections. 

So let’s consider how the Red Tape debate emerged. 

During testimony at public hearings back in March , the Red Tape initiative came under harsh criticism. Later in April, when Senator Buono refused to support the report, we wrote:

…while Senator Buono sat on the so called “bi-partisan” “Red Tape Review Group”, she recently strongly distanced herself from the Report’s recommendations.

According to the April 19 Star Ledger:

“The [Red Tape] report, released shortly before 11 a.m., says the group had “arrived at a series of unanimous recommendations” — but omits Buono’s name from the cover sheet. 

Asked about the omission, Buono said she raised concerns after receiving the language of proposed legislation last week but was told the group wanted to present a united report.“It’s just unanimity at any cost, even if it means being dishonest,” she said. “Bipartisanship is very different than strong-arming consensus.”

Senator Buono, Senate Majority leader (R) and Lt. Gov Guadagno at Red Tape hearing in Montclair

Fast forwarding to events in Trenton yesterday, it was obvious that the deal was in – industry lobbyists and Christie Administration officials didn’t even have to testify. The Democrats did their work for them.

So here’s what the latest round of bills would do:

S 2013 - would extend the current 5 year sunset rule expiration period to 7 years.

A bad idea. Would any business in a rapidly changing science and technology environment lock itself into a 7 year cycle for innovation? The 5 year expiration is the only thing that forces state agencies to review and improve their rules.

S 2014 - undermines the integrity of current rulemaking process and invites abuse by special interests.

Current law prohibits State agencies from making what are called “substantive changes” between the proposal of a rule for public comment, and the later final adoption of that rule. This prohibition was established by NJ courts, and it is intended to protect due process rights and assure that the public is given a clear notice and a chance to comment on regulations. It also provides incentives to DEP scientists to carefully draft rules, allows DEP scientists to control the substance of rules, and shields them from political pressures.

In contrast, the bill would change 30 years of practice and would allow DEP to engage in “bait and switch”. It would create even more political pressure DEP scientists to conduct wholesale negotiations on the substance of rules.

This would make rulemaking more like the corrupt legislative sausage mill, and a lot less like a science and law based system with integrity operating in the public interest.

Here’s how it would work in 3 simple steps: 1) DEP proposes a strong science based rule; 2) political appointees at DEP allow industry lobbyists to rewrite it; and 3) DEP then adopts the industry rewrite as a final rule. By the time environmental groups and the public later figure it out, the policy decision is a fait accompli.  

S 6 - (identical to S 1914 and A 2853) – This bill flat out violates federal law and would make radical changes to current environmental laws:

• creates a private compliance certification process, a gross conflict of interest;
• creates a new cost benefit test, with no safeguards, thereby subverting public health and environmetal protection standards in all laws;
• consolidates unaccountable power in a “permit czar” in the Lt. Governor’s Office
• creates waivers of strict compliance based on vague “hardship”
• codifies Governor Christie’s sham new undefined ”common sense” regulatory policy (per Executive Order #2?) 

 We urge you to contact your legislators to oppose these bills.

I just posted the below as an Update to my piece yesterday on the DEP’s new dry cleaner grant program, but now realize that the underlying public policy and journalism issues deserve individual attention.

I initially sought to clarify the orginal post based on a conversation that emerged in a discussion of this issue on a national TCE (perc) listserve. The listserve discussion was focused on vapor intrusion of chemicals into about 450 homes in Pompton Lakes NJ from the Dupont site.

We were involved at the outset in Pompton Lakes (see this) and have written extensively about the situation (see this and this). Jim O’Neill of the Bergen Record has written several outstanding killer storries, most recently this: Dupont’s Danger Was Hidden Away.

But then I read the Star Ledger coverage  of DEP’s dry cleaner grant program and my head exploded. So, here’s the story.

A national vapor intrusion expert replied to my post to note that dry cleaned clothes can “off gas” perc in homes, and resemble vapor intrusion. I agreed, and said that perc also can enter homes from nearby industrial air emission sources (e.g. dry cleaners, chemical plants, et al). 

I then tried to explain why the perc indoor vapor intrusion risks and outdoor ambient air risks were related and why I was so disgusted by the DEP press release touting the dry cleaner grant program.

You see, the “new” NJ DEP leadership makes a lot of noise in the press, especially in the Pompton Lakes community, that they are aggressively acting to protect public health. They say that now that they are aware of what’s going on in Pompton Lakes, they have made protecting the community a priority (in contrast to 25 years of prior DEP administration’s, who apparently either didn’t know or care about Dupont PL)

I don’t know how they pull that off, because the current Deputy Commissioner – who some say is really running the DEP due to the Commissioner’s lack of qualifications and experience -was the former head of the “broken” Site Remediation Program, which had “oversight” of Dupont, Pompton Lakes. In fact, her first public appearance as Deputy Commissioner was in Pompton Lakes,  where she was almost tarred and feathered for her comments and arrogant demeanor that gravely insulted residents.   

The key point is that DEP has huge regulatory power to protect public health from serious known risks that they are NOT using. 

The abandonment of the dry cleaner perc phase our rule is just one example of that.

In addition to the sham Pompton Lakes claims, DEP engages in PR stunts like the $5 million dry cleaner grant program – aside from getting the situation backwards by saying that polluting dry cleaners make “sacrifices” (instead of recognizing the fact that people’s health is sacrificed for the profits of polluters), DEP even have the chutzpah to note this:

 ”Priorities for the grant money are dry cleaners located in residential settings, such as apartment buildings or mixed commercial and residential strip malls, and those located within 50 feet of day care centers.”

While DEP may consider proximity and residential/day care location risk in the dry cleaner grant program, the larger reality is:

1) DEP has no statewide vapor intrusion (VI) program. What DEP does on VI risks is site specific and privatized. The pace and extent of any VI investigation and remedy is under the control of polluters, not based on public health. DEP is well aware of scores of volatile organic contaminant groundwater plumes under occupied buildings that cause VI risks, yet does nothing to warn or protect the people in those buildings ;

2) DEP is well aware of the fact that the DHSS school and day care center VI risk standards are based on a 1 in 10,000 risk level. Instead of adopting protective regulations using a  more conservative  risk standard for this extremely sensitive sub-population (i.e. children), current NJ school and day care standards are 100 times WEAKER than other DEP soil, water, and VI standards, which are based on 1 in a million risk level (which is derived by risk assessments that assume a healthy adult male exposure, not a developing child’s as mandted by law!); (i.e. for easy confirmation, see page 40-43 of DHSS  rule adoption document - which flat out contradicts the “Kiddie Kollege” law, which mandates adoption of children’s health based state-wide DHSS standards, not site specific judgements); and

3) DEP does not have air quality standards or enforceable permit regulations to address exactly the kind of risky and unacceptable situation they describe in their press release, e.g. when an industrial emission source is located very close to homes or schools, DEP does not consider those health risks in setting permit emission limits on that source!!!

DEP knows all this irresponsible abdication, yet they get away with writing Orwellian press releases – which amounts to lying to the public – and no one calls them on it! - reporters instead stenographhically praise DEP for it!

The DEP and DuPont had been discussing that pollution privately for years. DuPont began drilling monitoring wells on its site to test for groundwater contamination in 1981. The DEP told DuPont in April 1983 to assess the impact on groundwater. In a July 1984 report to the DEP, DuPont said the groundwater was contaminated with lead, selenium and volatile organic compounds. It would later also be shown to contain mercury.

The 1984 report also said that “polluted groundwater may be leaving the site.”

In October 1985, DuPont sent a letter to some nearby residents, saying some groundwater was contaminated beneath the facility. In the letter, plant manager Anthony V. Scancella told residents that DuPont thought the solvents came from operations at the plant mostly during World War I and World War II.

He wrote: “I want to assure you that there is no health concern for you or your family.”

Two months later, Scancella sent residents an update — DuPont had sampled water from nine private wells from homes near the site and five had detectable levels of solvents.

In the reassuring letter, Scancella said DuPont was “instituting a program to clean up this contaminated groundwater.” He concluded: “I want to reemphasize that there is no health concern for you or your family from the low levels of solvents we have detected.”

The levels were not low. A DEP document from the period indicates one residential well showed contamination of nearly 5,600 parts per billion. The EPA’s current maximum contaminant levels for TCE and PCE, two of the solvents in the groundwater, are 5 parts per billion each.

Growing mistrust

 By 1989, DEP officials became impatient with DuPont. In a memo that January, the DEP stated DuPont “has done nothing to halt the spread of off-site contamination.”

“The off-site migration of the contaminated groundwater is a threat to human health,” the DEP said, and “requires the most immediate action.”

A month later, a DEP geologist reported that “at a DuPont-sponsored public meeting, DuPont informed people there was no reason for concern about the groundwater in the area. It appears that the public is possibly being misled about the problem.”

The State of North Carolina’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) has issued a draft risk assessment and recommended “Maximum Allowable Concentration”  (MAC) in groundwater for the toxic chemical pollutant known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid).

Not surprisingly, Dupont, the corporation responsible for poisoning workers and water resources with PFOA, played a major role in the NC SAB’s deliberations.

One could fairly say that Dupont’s hired guns polluted the science (and pressured regulators at EPA).

In fact, the same Dupont consultant who polluted NC science, Dr. Tardiff, previously appeared in NJ to attack NJ DEP science.

Interestingly, NJ’s own Rutgers scientist, Dr. Keith R. Cooper, wrote in the April 19, 2010 scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicilogy that  Tardiff’s work contained:

“numerous errors, omissions, misrepresentations, and deviations from established risk assessment approaches…”;

The North Carolina SAB recommendations and MAC have relevance for New Jersey, as NJ DEP is now grappling with PFOA pollution, which has spawned a class action lawsuit. North Carolina’s SAB recommendation will impact NJ because: :

1)  North Carolina relied on Dupont’s science to reject NJ’s PFOA risk assessment approach and NJ’s far lower and more protective 0.04 ppb recommended safe drinking water level;

2) Dupont will use the North Carolina SAB recommendations to attack NJ’s science and undermine the development of its own NJ state drinking water “Maximum Contaminant Level” (MCL). Those efforts have stalled since NJ DEP released its PFOA risk assessment; and

3)  We have warned about the influence of regulated entities, such as Dupont, who is a member of NJ’s recently formed Science Advisory Board (SAB). If Dupont is allowed to buy its own science and use that to sway North Carolina’s SAB, you can be sure they will try the same manuever on NJ’s SAB.

See all the releavent documents in links from PEER press release below:

[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).

Cooper's hawk - NJ threatened species (NJDEP photo)

[Update: 11/11/09 Ed Rodgers of NJN TV news did a great story last night, click here, runs from time 8:55 - 11:15 ]

At the recent NJ Business and Industry Association panel discussion, DEP Commissioner Mauriello made a commitment that DEP would soon propose rules to delist the Cooper’s hawk as a State threatened species.

The move would not only eliminate protections for the hawk, but allow development of untold acres of currently protected forested breeding, nesting, and foraging habitat.

Maurillo’s announcement was made in response (and clearly appeared to be a concession) to a specific developer who complained that his $40 million project was blocked by the current threatened listing, which protects critical habitat from development. This developer also claimed that “hundreds of millions of dollars of development” is blocked by the current State threatened species designation. Mauriello replied that he was aware of this specific project, had reviewed the developer’s fax to him, and thanked him for it too (gee, can I have another?). Mauriello even suggested that the developer apply for other DEP permits in the interim, which he would approve.

Mauriello did not say whether biologists at DEP’s Endangered and Non-Game Species Program were clamoring for delisting Cooper’s hawk, or whether the move was made in response to political pressure by developers. I checked all the recent posted minutes of the Endangered & Non-Game Species Advisory Council and could find nothing about delisting, so if Mauriello is doing an end run around ENSAC then it looks like the political deal is in.

Regardless of whether the delisting is scientifically justified, it is obvious that political pressure is impacting DEP priorities. DEP has severe deficits of staff, not only to conduct the biological studies, but to write the regulations. Delisting would seem to be a very poor priority to assign  scarce staff to work on. For example, according to ENSP (1/16/08):

Habitat Regulations

The E/T habitat regulations have not yet been proposed, nor is there a specific schedule for doing

so. The current fiscal status of the State and the need for an additional staff to implement the

regulations is partly responsible for the delay in the proposal. The Commissioner remains

committed to implementing regulations protecting E&T wildlife habitat.

So I pose the question to the experts out there – is this delisting justified? Has the Cooper’s hawk fully recovered? Even if it has recovered, is removal of current protections a wise move?

I do not work on birds and clearly am no woodland raptor expert. Here is the best information I could find on DEP’s website:

Status and Conservation

Until the mid-1930s, many raptor species, including the Cooper’s hawk, were shot in large numbers during migration and on their breeding grounds because of suspected poultry and game bird predation. Regardless, the Cooper’s hawk remained a fairly common breeding species in New Jersey’s forests until the 1950s when habitat loss caused population declines. In addition, the pesticide DDT impaired reproduction and contributed to population declines observed from the 1950s to 1970s. Due to the reduction in the state’s breeding population and the loss of habitat, the Cooper’s hawk was listed as an endangered species in New Jersey in 1974. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program considers the Cooper’s hawk to be “apparently secure globally,” yet “rare in the State (breeding)” (Office of Natural Lands Management 1998). Concern for this species is evident in nearby states, such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, where it is listed as threatened, and Massachusetts and New York, where it is considered a species of Special Concern. The National Audubon Society also included the Cooper’s hawk on its Blue List of Imperiled Species from 1971 to 1982 and in 1986, the final year of the list.

Following the nationwide ban of DDT in 1972 and the reforestation of fallow lands throughout the state, Cooper’s hawk populations began to recover. Cooper’s hawks experienced increases in New Jersey Christmas Bird Counts from 1959 to 1988 and Breeding Bird Surveys from 1980 to 1999 (Sauer et al. 1996, Sauer et al. 2001). Other recent surveys have also shown a substantial increase in the breeding population of Cooper’s hawks in New Jersey. As a result, the status of the Cooper’s hawk was reclassified from endangered to threatened in New Jersey in 1999. The loss of large, contiguous forests remains a threat to this species and warrants the continued protection of Cooper’s hawk nesting habitats (Source NJDEP link).

Wildlife Action Plan (2008)

Recommendations: Identify, protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the remaining large contiguous tracts of forest and forested wetland habitat as identified by the Landscape Project for the longterm viability of forest-dwelling, area-sensitive and interior-nesting wildlife. These include such species or suites as the Cooper’s hawk, red-headed woodpecker, and forestinterior species such as interior forest passerines, cavity nesting birds, and forest-dwelling bats.

Landscape Project – Justification:

The home ranges of Cooper’s hawks’ are highly variable, both geographically and seasonally. Only breeding records of Cooper’s hawks are used in the Landscape Project to value habitat. Home range calculations reported in the literature for Cooper’s hawks during the breeding season range from 65.5 ha to 784 ha. The average being 348 ha, or an area equivalent to having a 1.1 km radius. The ENSP uses a 1.0 km radius to represent the occurrence area boundary for all Cooper’s hawk breeding records used in the Landscape Project. This represents a slightly conservative estimate of the breeding season home ranges of Cooper’s hawks as reported in the literature.

Source: NJDEP: New Jersey’s Landscape Project (Version 3.0 – Highlands – 2008)

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/landscape/lp_report_3_0.pdf

Statewide Version 2.0 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/wap/pdf/wap_attach_a.pdf

Basis for recent Green Acres land acquisition – 170 acre tract in Kingwood Township along Delaware

“The tract encompasses a portion of a Natural Heritage Priority Site, which delineates important areas for the state’s biodiversity. The site consists of wooded bluffs, dry woods, steep rocky slopes and a small stream within a deep ravine. The tract supports threatened animals including the Cooper’s hawk and barred owl.”

Middlesex Preschool - located virtually on top of old landfill

Symbolically illustrating the importance of the issue, the very first piece of legislation Governor Jon Corzine signed in the year 2007, was the so called “Kiddie Kollege”  law (P.L. 2007, Chapter 1.). To much fanfare, in a January 11, 2007 press release, Corzine proclaimed:

GOVERNOR CORZINE SIGNS LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AT SCHOOLS AND CHILD CARE CENTERS

 TRENTON - Governor Jon S. Corzine today signed legislation to help ensure that child care and educational facilities are environmentally safe for the children attending them.

“This bill will help identify and remediate educational facilities and child care centers located on environmentally high risk sites,” Governor Corzine said. “This puts New Jersey at the forefront of states nationally in protecting children from environmental contaminants while at child care facilities and schools.”

At the time – and in testimony during legislative review of the bill – we warned both the Governor and Legislators that the entire approach was fatally flawed and would not be effective in protecting children from toxic chemical exposures while at schools and daycare centers across the state. 

Basically, the fatal flaw was to try to address a massive problem in NJ’s toxic site cleanup program with a band aid – the daycare licensing process.

But of course it’s a lot easier politically to sweep the issue under the rug by making it only a day care licensing issue, than it is to take on the powerful chemical industry lobby in New Jersey that is responsible for the problem. Daycare centers don’t have lobbyists or make campaign contributions.

Perhaps even worse, we have learned that the Attorney General’s Office has issued a legal opinion that says that the Kiddie Kollege law DOES NOT APPLY to existing schools. This opinion basically calls the Governor a liar.

The Middlesex preschool case exposes multiple flaws and loopholes in the Kiddie Kollege law:

Oversight of Middlesex Boro Landfill closure, toxic site cleanup, and vapor intrusion are DEP's job.

1. The Middlesex Boro pre-school where unsafe indoor levels of benzene and TCE were recently found is located virtually on top of an old landfill. Proper closure and cleanup of the landfill is regulated by and is the responsibility of DEP and has NOTHING to do with day care licensing.

2. The source of the chemical fumes in the preschool are  caused by what is known as “vapor intrusion”; a process where volatile organic chemicals move from a toxic waste site through groundwater and soils and enter a building from below (see this for a good explanation) . Identifying sites and controlling vapor intrusion into buildings is regulated by and is the responsibility of DEP and has NOTHING to do with day care licensing.

3. The source of the chemicals in the pre-school are from a DEP regulated discharge of hazardous substances to soils and groundwater. Cleanup of contaminated sites is regulated by and is the responsibility of DEP and has NOTHING to do with day care licensing.

4. Thousands of children in hundreds of schools across New Jersey are potentially  impacted by vapor intrusion from toxic sites and industrial emission sources. These pollution sources are regulated by DEP and have NOTHING to do with day care licensing.

The Middlesex preschool tragedy was predictable, predicted, and entirely preventable. So, for purposes of public education and accountability, let’s walk quickly through the history of all the warnings that were not heeded by the Governor and Legislators, all of whom knew better:

In August 2006, when the Kiddie Kollge daycare tragedy emerged, we warned:

MERCURY-LADEN DAY-CARE CENTER IN NEW JERSEY IS NO ANOMALY

“What is going on in New Jersey is both unbelievable and to be expected from its deliberately anemic toxic cleanup laws. There are likely hundreds more ticking toxic time bombs out there that have been re-developed with DEP’s blessings.”

When DEP failed to respond aggressively to the tragedy, we warned that a coverup would likely ensue:

CALL FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL TO HEAD MERCURY DAY-CARE PROBE — Severe Toxic Problems Acknowledged in 2002 Internal “Vulnerability Assessment

“If we do not want to see this type of debacle recur, it is crucial that the underlying policy, regulatory, and program weaknesses be identified – and that is a job for the Inspector General.”

When we disclosed that DEP was negotiating a voluntary agreement with the polluter of Kiddie Kollege that poisoned 60 toddlers, we warned: 

NEW JERSEY TOXIC CLEANUP PROGRAM EXPOSED AS TOOTHLESS TIGER — State Allows Industry to Control Cleanup Even In Most Egregious Cases

“New Jersey only cleans up contaminated sites with the consent of the polluter – how nuts is that?” If the Kiddie Kollge scandal cannot produce meaningful reform, then heaven help us because we apparently cannot help ourselves.”

When DEP conducted a statewide “assessment” of  4,200 day care centers within 400 feet of a toxic waste site, we warned:

60 MORE NEW JERSEY DAY-CARE CENTERS NAMED ON TOXIC WARNINGS — Hundreds of Homes, Schools and Other Facilities May Also Be Vulnerable

“Why is DEP not also giving warning notices directly to parents, teachers and neighboring residents?”… “What is being found at day-care centers is just the tip of a much bigger chemical pollution problem that New Jersey is not ready to acknowledge,”

When we uncovered documents that showed that DEP was actively covering up the problem, we warned:

NEW JERSEY AGENCY SAT ON SECRET LIST OF 6,000 TOXIC DANGER SITES — Latest Corzine “Kiddie Kollege” Reform Scheme Falls Well Short of Mark

“These documents show that that DEP knew perfectly well that tragedies like Kiddie Kollege were accidents just waiting to happen,… According to testimony delivered by Bill Wolfe, the Corzine plan contains several other major flaws:

The bill skips over existing health risks at more than 700 day care centers which are located on or within 400 feet of contaminated toxic waste sites plus as many as 100 schools located on or near toxic waste sites;

When similar toxic problems were found at schools, we warned:

TOXIC SCHOOL SCANDAL SPOTLIGHTS WEAK NEW JERSEY LAW — Parents Get No Notice of Child’s Exposure in Deregulated State Clean-Up Program

“As we have repeatedly warned, every few months another toxic scandal will erupt and state officials will again try to act as if they do not know how it could happen. The place to start looking for answers is in the mirror.”

When scores of old landfills were shown to be polluting groundwater and emitting poison gases into nearby homes across the state, we warned: 

NEW JERSEY POSTS LIST OF 831 DIRTY DUMPS BUT NO CLEANUP PLAN — More than One in Six Abandoned Dumps Polluting Groundwater

“A number of housing developments have sprung up along the perimeter of the landfills, without proper notification to purchasers or adequate cleanup and closure. In some places, [toxic] gas has migrated into basements and drinking water wells have been contaminated…. In a December 12, 2006 letter, Bill Wolfe asked the Corzine administration to warn potentially impacted residents”

When so the called Kiddie Kollege reform legislation was being considered by the legislature, we warned: 

NEW JERSEY TOXIC DAY CARE REFORM BILL STILL MISSES THE MARK — State Grasping for Quick Fixes to Broken Brownfields Program

“While the intent and some provisions of this ambitious legislation are commendable, the bill fails to address the underlying flaws in NJ toxic site cleanup laws, while the indoor air program may be unworkable,”

When the Kiddie Kollege bill was on Governor Corzine’s desk, we warned and requested a conditional veto::

CORZINE URGED TO CLOSE LOOPHOLES IN TOXIC DAY-CARE BILL — Conditional Veto Could Strike Out Exemptions and Strengthen Safeguards

“This is the moment when Governor Corzine needs to back up his rhetoric of being independent from special interests. If Governor Corzine will not act now to protect children from a lifetime of damage from breathing poisonous vapors, when will he act?”

 (end of story - tomorrow, Part III)

Toxic daycare appears located in an idyllic country setting - but that's an old landfill in the backyard (read on!)

Imagine the anguish of being told your child was exposed to cancer causing industrial chemicals while at daycare. Our kids went to daycare, so I understand a parent’s concerns and fears – but our worst health fear for our kids was contraction of pink eye.

Yet, almost 3 years to the day after the tragic Kiddie Kollege episode where 60 toddlers were poisoned by mercury vapors while at daycare (see  NY Times “After Mercury Pollutes a Day Care Center, Everyone Points Elsewhere”) that’s exactly what another group of New Jersey parents were told last week.

And again, similar to the Kiddie Kollege case, (see NY Times “Memo Shows Agency Knew of Danger in Child Care Building“ ) the DEP knew or should have known and failed to take steps to prevent the problem or adequately warn parents.

So here we are again. We were disgusted but not surprised to learn that yet another toxic daycare center was discovered operating in NJ in Middlesex Boro. This is an intolerable situation – DEP must stop putting our kids at risk and engaging in crisis management, reacting to one scandal after another.

Last week, the local newspaper reported: New tests show elevated chemical vapor levels in Middlesex Borough preschool

MIDDLESEX BOROUGH — A second round of tests has confirmed the presence of elevated vapor levels of two chemicals inside a local church preschool, but not in amounts anywhere near enough to shut the facility, the borough’s environmental engineering firm has reported…. According to Ferguson, the latest air samples showed levels of TCE fumes at 16 micrograms per cubic meter in the preschool room at the church complex and 9.7 micrograms per cubic meter in the youth lounge. The findings for benzene fumes were eight micrograms per cubic meter in the preschool room and 13 micrograms per cubic meter in the youth lounge.

“These levels do not pose an adverse health risk,” said Ferguson. …

Mayor John Fuhrmann, who attended Monday night’s meeting, said he’s satisfied with the way the company is handling the tests, adding that he expects the firm to present a remediation proposal “as soon as possible.” 

Both Fuhrmann and Ferguson noted that the source of the vapors has not been determined, but said the firm is working to find that out.

Trichloroethylene is a common household cleaning solvent, often used as a degreaser, Ferguson said. It is odorless in the amounts found in Sadat’s air samples.

First, I suspected that the local reporter got badly spun, because right off the bat I knew that Mr. Ferguson was factually in error and was therefore misleading parents with his bogus claim that the levels posed no adverse health risk.

Here are some facts: The DEP indoor air level for benzene, a proven human carcinogen, is 2 microgram per cubic meter. The reported levels in this preschool are 13 micrograms, which is more than 6 times or  650% higher than DEP’s indoor air level.

The DEP indoor air level for TCE, a proven human carcinogen, is 3 micrograms per cubic meter. The reported levels are 16 micrograms, which is more than 5 times or at least 533% higher than DEP’s indoor air level. In August tests, the TCE levels were even higher (the reader can confirm this and read the complete DEP Vapor Intrusion Guidance document here).

Yes, these are DEP’s chronic indoor exposure levels, but there is great uncertainty regarding children’s health effects and exposure is completely preventable.

Children are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of cancer causing chemicals because their lungs are still under development; they have high inhalation rates relative to body mass, high lung surface area per body weight, low lung clearance rates, narrow lung airways, and immature immune systems. Children metabolize chemicals differently than adults and are far more vulnerable to chemical exposure than healthy adult males used to calculate most risk assessments.

The “acceptable risk” of a child’s exposure to industrial chemicals while at a daycare is ZERO (0) – “ND” or “non-detect”

Parents can refer to federal toxicological profiles of benzene and TCE here – the common sense bottom line is to minimize exposure:

“Living near gasoline fueling stations or hazardous waste sites may increase exposure to benzene. People are advised not to have their families play near fueling stations, manufacturing plants, or hazardous waste sites.“)

Second, I was baffled as to why a Mayor would be satisfied with this totally unacceptable situation.

Well, it turns out that the source of the problem is the Middlesex Boro landfill and/or underground gasoline storage tanks (UST) 100 feet or so from the day care center. So we now understand why the Mayor would have an incentive to minimize the problem.

Third, I was curious as to why a consultant that is known for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites was suggesting that common household cleaning compounds might be a source of the problem in the pre-school (and not the old landfill and USTs). These volatile organic industrial chemicals have poisoned soil and groundwater at hundreds of sites in New Jersey, including the indoor air of nearby buildings.

Well, in turns out that the consultant works for Middlesex Boro, who owns the liability for the landfill and UST problems, so again we now understand why the consultant’s first loyalty is to his client and why they too have professional and legal liabilty incentives to minimize the problem.

So I took a trip out there. I spoke with the day care center owner, toured the site, spoke with local officials and neighbors, and took some photographs. 

What I saw confirmed my suspicions, so I filed OPRA requests with the Middlesex Boro clerk’s office and the DEP to get the data and smoking guns.

I also will send a letter to DEP Commissioner Mauriello that makes a series of recommendations, the most important being immediate installation of a subslab vapor recovery system at the day care center. If such a system is not installed immediately (less than 2 weeks) then the facility should be closed until a system is installed.(the letter is similar to Memo to DEP: Protect Kids – Enforce the Law

DEP recently oversaw installation of a system at Atlantic Highlands Elementary School, where indoor air levels were significantly lower than in this Middlesex preschool. (see: A Win for the Kids and Parents of Atlantic Highlands

US EPA installed a system in the Franklin Township Elementary School where, again, where levels were significant lower than in Middlesex.(see EPA Final Franklin Elementary School Presentation)

The children of Middlesex Boro deserve at least the same level of protection as that provided by DEP and EPA in other school settings.

More shoes to drop in this story, as we explain what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who is accountable.

Part II – Corzine daycare center reforms failed (Wednesday)

Part III – DEP ignored repeated warnings which led to tragedy (Thursday)

Part IV – What the case files say – (pending OPRA replies)

Part V – The solution installed – subslab vapor mitigation system (pending)

Part VI – Lessons learned and real reform agenda (pending)

groundwater pollution monitoring wells at perimeter of landfill almost in backyards of surrounding homes.

Raritan Bay estuary, site of proposed wind project behind Bayshore Regional Sewer Authority Plant

[Update: 10/25/09 - Star Ledger - Proposed New DEP Regulations Renew Sniping Among Environmentalists

I support wind power, but will not sit idly by and watch as wind lobbyists dictate DEP policy and permit decisions. And we are not fooled by cynical PR stunts by the Governor to create a false appearance of reform - see Corzine Executive Oder #148.

We have been writing a lot about undue and improper political pressure on DEP (for example, see: Political Pressure on DEP – How The Game is Played where we disclosed exactly how former DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell and State Senator Sweeney (D-Gloucester) are strong arming DEP to issue wind approvals in Delaware Bay).

But the politics have gotten so bad that now even the DEP Commissioner is complaining about it (see this for DEP emails linking wind lobbyists, the Governor's Office, and DEP Commissioner).

Some of this improper pressure recently resulted in criminal indictments of State Assemblymen Van Pelt (R-Ocean) and Smith (D-Hudson) (See: DEP Involved in Corruption Scandal).

Assemblyman Van Pelt was indicted for taking a bribe to use his legislative powers to pressure DEP to issue CAFRA permits. He bragged that DEP "worked for him", that he knew how "to work the channels" at DEP, and  that he had sucessfully pressured DEP to issue prior CAFRA and wetlands permits. (see Van Pelt criminal complaint here).

On its face, the Van Pelt's indictment creates an appearance of impropriety in terms of political influence on the DEP permit process. This requires investigation to get the facts surrounding Van Pelt's influence on DEP, if ONLY to vindicate DEP and restore public confidence in DEP (see Star Ledger: N.J. environmental groups call for investigation of DEP in light of corruption arrests).

Governor Corzine's own EO 148 admits the problem, but Corzine cynically diverts attention to local officials (instead of State officials) and limits solutions to the local level in only a handful of towns:

WHEREAS, because of the nature of the reported conduct on the part of these local officials charged with corruption, and particularly those who choose to remain in office, and in furtherance of this administration’s commitment to ensuring the integrity of all State approval processes, it is appropriate to provide for additional scrutiny of applications for State approvals that involve jurisdictions headed by officials charged in the corruption probe who remain in office; (link to EO 148)

Assemblyman Smith was  indicted for taking a bribe and promising to get DEP approval of a toxic site cleanup (NFA letter) in Jersey City in order to build a daycare center and public housing. The Smith criminal complaint has a wired cooperating witness (CW) saying that Smith called DEP Commissioner Mauriello. The CW's wire then says someone from DEP called Smith back and that- after the callback from DEP - that everything is OK in securing DEP approvals. The Bergen Record reported on leaked DEP emails that show at least 7 DEP staffers were involved in responding to Smith's request, so clearly Smith was able to get the DEP's immediate attention (see Bergen Record: DEP e-mails follow lawmaker's request). And the criminal complaint also reveals a senior DOT official saying that the DOT approvals for the project was a good  "business opportunity" for a colleague in DOT overseeing the approval. (see Smith criminal complaint here)

But there have been a series of other highly visible cases where the political pressure on DEP may not have risen to criminal conduct, but nonetheless were clearly unethical and harmful of human health and the environment. Many of these embarrassing episodes have gotten significant media coverage, such that DEP's integrity is reasonably subject to question by a skeptical public.

The latest episode in the saga of politicization of DEP decisions involves a wind project at the BayShore Regional Sewer Authority. The Asbury Park Press wrote about it Saturday (see: State: Wind turbine plan must satisfy DEP rules )but that coverage got it wrong - we do NOT oppose this wind project - and the APP story really missed the most significant aspect of the story that we leaked to them.

In a September 23, 2009 e-mail to Kenny Esser from Governor Jon Corzine’s office, Fred DeSanti, a consultant for the project, asked for “direct intervention at this time from the front office” to stop the state Department of Environmental Protection from imposing “unreasonable and inflexible requirements” that would delay the project and possibly jeopardize the more than $3 million in federal stimulus funds.

DEP Assistant Commisioner Nancy Wittenberg - no tree hugger and a former NJ Builders Association lobbyist - sent an email to DEP Commissioner Mauriello that complained about Esser leaning on her. DEP Commissioner Mauriello echoed her frustration.

The next day, on September 24th, Mauriello sent an e-mail to his top staff complaining about being leaned on by the Governor’s office:

“[The attached] illustrates the pressure that Nancy [sic] is under related to this project, and we have little ability to control it and of course the full story and context does not get represented with these folks, but what else is new.”

So what else is new? Right.

Mauriello’s reply illustrates how bad morale at DEP has become due to constant political dictates from lobbyists and the Governor’s office to compromise environmental protections, suppress or distort science, and relax enforcement  in order to promote economic development.

This has got to stop – DEP independence and integrity must be restored.

Despite the fact that wind power is a laudable and much needed renewable source of energy, the ends do not justify the means. Promotion of wind must not be allowed to compromise the integrity of DEP or protections of natural resources.

To begin to restore DEP integrity and public confidence in the agency, we need and independent investigation to document the causes and extent of the problem. Based on that investigation, a series of corrective action reform measures must be put in place.

One element of that reform effort must be transparency and disclosure requirements about exactly who DEP is meeting with behind closed doors.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant and can counteract the power of special interests by empowering citizen watchdogs and news media (see: This Is Why We Need Transparency at DEP).

Another necessary reform measure is whistleblower protections. DEP staffers witness corrupt practices on a daily basis, but rightfully don’t want to sacrifice their careers disclosing wrongdoing. We need to empower the agency professionals and block the current widespread practice of retaliation for conscientious public disclosures of mismanagement, manipulation of science, and threats to public health and the environment. NJ’s current whistleblower laws do not protect employees who disclose such problems publicly. (see: Star Ledger: End Political Influence on DEP Regulators).

Another must include restrictions on what are legally known as “ex parte” communications to DEP. An ex parte communication is a communication to DEP from any person  about a pending DEP matter that occurs in the absence of other parties to the matter and without public notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication. People often refer to these communications as “one-sided,” “off-the-record,” or private communications between a DEP staffer and any person concerning a matter that is pending or impending before the DEP. According to California regulations:

Rules regarding ex parte communications have their roots in constitutional principles of due process and fundamental fairness. With public agencies, ex parte communications rules also serve an important function in providing transparency. Ex parte communications may contribute to public cynicism that decisions are based more on special access and influence than on the facts, the laws, and the exercise of discretion to promote the public interest.

Ex parte communications are fundamentally offensive in adjudicative proceedings because they involve an opportunity by one party to influence the decision maker outside the presence of opposing parties, thus violating due process requirements. Such communications are not subject to rebuttal or comment by other parties. Ex parte communications can frustrate a lengthy and painstaking adjudicative process because certain decisive facts and arguments would not be reflected in the record or in the decisions. Finally, ex parte contacts may frustrate judicial review since the record would be missing such communications.

Atlantic County Utilities Authority wind project - Atlantic City, NJ

NJ Business and Industry leaders met behind closed doors today at posh Forsgate Country Club to press for more concessions on key environmental regulations to promote economic development.
  

The NJ BIA event, dubbed “Meet the Decision Makers” featured a panel discussion with DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello, Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), Assembly Environment Committee Chairman John McKeon (D-Essex), and Senator Kip Bateman (R-Somerset).

This kind of event – just weeks before a Gubernatorial election – is designed to send a clear political message to DEP to back off enforcement and to continue to weaken environmental regulations to promote economic development. It is another example of how powerful lobbyists for special interests are granted preferential high level access and are able to work behind the scenes to influence policy, gut environmental protections, and politicize science. 

At a time when DEP budgets are slashed, work related travel eliminated, and the undue political influence of special interests is the focus of ethics and corruption investigations across the state, this event sends exactly the wrong message.

A September 28, 2009 email by DEP legislative aid John Hazen – who reports to Mauriello – reveals that Senator Smith demanded specific DEP replies to a series of questions to advance the NJBIA agenda.
 

DEP Hazen (R) confers with Senators Smith (L) and Bucco (back facing) before Senate Environment Committee hearing (5/19/08)

Hazen solicited responses to the following questions posed by NJBIA and conveyed to DEP by Smith:

 John Hazen 9/28/2009 11:50 AM >>>

On October 9th NJBIA will be hosting Commissioner Mark Mauriello, Senator Bob Smith, Assemblyman John Mckeon And Senator Kip Bateman For A “Meet The Decision Makers Event”.

 In preparation, Senator Smith’s office has contacted me to see if we can provide him with some background/briefing/info to answer the following questions. Can you please review the following and get back to me with a brief writeup on your respective topics? Thanks. 

 1. What are your goals going forward, not only in the Lame Duck Session, but beyond?

 2. What is the status of the Licensed Site Remediation Professional program?  How many temporary licenses have been issued?  What is the status of the board?

3. What is the status of the Water Quality Management Planning process? Where have you seen problems?  How are you dealing with the conflicts arising from the sewer service area maps the department is using? 

4. What is the status of the Science Advisory Board?  What are the first few issues you see them tackling?

5. If the bond act fails, do you see the need for an immediate stable source of funding for open space and farmland preservation?  If the bond act passes are you still contemplating a water tax?

 6. As companies do a better job at lowering emissions, what are the challenges you see in funding the Title V program?  Is it fair to raise fees on companies that are taking steps to lower emissions and improve the overall air quality of the State?

7. What is the status of the State Water Supply Master Plan?

I managed to crash the event and below report the following discussion that ensued. This can give you a sense of the business community’s concerns.

Overall, I was disappointed but not surprised by the lack of vision or leadership on the environment.

former Governor Jim Florio was in attendance

I was appalled by how willing both DEP Commissioner Mauriello and legislators were to accommodate business demands.  I was shocked by Senator Smith’s remarks about stealing property, property rights, and an all out attack on new DEP Water Quality Management Planning rules. And I was embarrassed by the juvenile bashing and personal attacks on colleagues Dave Pringle and Jeff Tittel.

Following short introductory statements by the panelists, a question (Q) and answer (A) session took Place. Here is a summary.

1. Licensed Site Professionals (LSP) (this new program got the most discussion. NJBIA distributed a fact sheet to members. Here are EPA audits and our take on SRP and LSP)

What is the status? How many license applications?

A: (Mauriello) Irene Kropp has done a wonderful job in developing an entire new program. Nothing being done in the dark behind closed doors – open and transparent process, listening to stakeholders and advisory groups. Looking forward to looking the skeptics in the eye when the program is working.  About 90 applications submitted, 35 approved. Seeking guidance from the Governor’s Office on LSP Board appointments. Program takes effect Nov. 3, 2009 “D Day”. Good news for the environment and really good news for the regulated community.

2. What is the status of proposed rules to delist Cooper’s Hawk as a threatened species? A $40 million project is being held up. Additional projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars are being held up. Economy can’t afford that. DEP drafted rules years ago, but has not proposed. When will DEP propose these rules?

A: (Maurielo) I am familiar with your project. Thanks for the fax describing it. DEP draft rules undergoing legal review. Very close to proposal – expect proposal in next few months. In the meantime, what can the DEP do to expedite your project? Perhaps you should apply for other permits – we will issue.

3. What is status of Science Advisory Board (SAB)? (see this for background on SAB)

A: (Mauriello) The SAB was modeled on EPA SAB. Don’t know if you read blogs [Note: clearly a reference to this post], but our critics are wrong – lots of scientific talent in NJ. I’ve made it clear that SAB will not review standards or drive policy.   160 scientists nominated or self nominated. Despite what blogs say, I had only my first meeting last week with DEP scientists to discuss SAB. Haven’t reviewed names of candidates. (Despite what the blogs say). Looking for diversity and balance. 

4. What is the status of the Report mandated by the Global Warming Response Act and development of regulations to implement the Global Warming Response Act (GWRA)?

A: (Mauriello) GWRA a bold law, but real work needs to be done. DEP implementing RGGI (20% portion of $60 million revenue) on forest and marsh sequestration. 300 application for funding under review. Staff are reviewing comments on the draft report. We just proposed new CAFRA rules to promote solar and wind. Final Report upcoming. No real regulatory focus, more incentives. 

5. What is the status of the Water Supply Master Plan? Why doesn’t NJ go back to US Supreme Court on DRBC allocations, which are unfair to NJ?

A: (misunderstood the question, spent 5 minutes outlining USACOE flood data and reservoir storage; flood hazard regulations; and stream upgrades).

Q: Followup: You misunderstood my question – I am concerned about WSMP science and  models that determine safe yields and 1983 DRBC agreement. Current plan uses 25 year old data.

(there was a later follow-up question on WSMP)

A: (Mauriello) Draft final WSM plan is close. Delayed because DEP waited for new USGS data/model. Plan will identify new population projection growth based surplus/deficit areas, as well as what we need to do to transfer water to deficit areas. “We don’t tell people how to manage water – purveyors have lots of expertise. We try to provide tools for management.”

6. Would you support an extension of the Permit Extension Act, which expires in June 2010? Is such a bill likely to move in lame duck?

A: Smith: Yes

McKeon: Yes

Bateman: Yes

Tavit Najarian, consultant, asks about TMDLs and DEP's proposed new phosphorus water quality standards

7.  The Clean Water Act “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) program lacks a sound scientific basis. DEP just revised the basis for the phosphorus standard from a numeric to a narrative basis. Why? How will this change impact TMDL’s already finished and under development?

A: (Mauriello – did not answer the questions). I agree that TMDL is inefficient and ineffective basis for setting permit discharge limits.  I am looking at the entire TMDL program. DEP spends a lot of time and money developing TMDLs, and then litigating them in court. DEP must then face administrative appeals of permits when the TMDLs are used and incorporated in discharge permits.  The TMDL program will be the first issue I charge the SAB to look into.  I am sure that my science staff will hear about that in less than an hour (laughter).

8. What can DEP and legislators do to stop job loss and loss of production (e.g. recent Sunoco refinery closure)?

A: Smith “We shouldn’t be the problem”

A: McKeon –that’s a complex question involving taxes and labor and the needs of a densely populated state of 9 million people. It will always be more expensive to live in NJ. We can work to expedite permits, but will not “look the other way” and compromise environmental protections which is “short sighted and will poison the future of the state and make it an economic wasteland”.

9. Solar panels are considered “impervious surface” which discourages installation. Why? We need guidance from DEP of new definition of impervious cover to stimulate solar on the ground.

 A: (Mauriello) DEP doesn’t have statewide jurisdiction over IC – in CAFRA and Highlands yes. MLUL has inconsistent definitions too.  Governor Corzine has directed me to make accommodations for renewable energy.

A: (Smith)  – you need a bill to define IC. I will be introducing a bill soon to do that.

10. How can DEP promote sequestration of carbon in forests on private lands?

A: (Smith) – support S713 “Forest stewardship plans” as opposed to “Forest Management Plans”

11. Politics

a) Endorsements – What’s up with environmental groups endorsements? None backed Governor. Can we expect more surprises from them? (lot’s of laughter and jokes about Jeff Tittel and Dave Pringle)

A: Smith: “Anyone here in love with Jeff Tittel, please stand up”

“Live by the sword, be prepared to die by the sword”

A: Bateman: Give Dave Pringle credit.

A: McKeon: DEP has been reasonable on regulations, which is why the environmental groups don’t support the governor.  If Corzine wins, the groups that didn’t endorse will lose influence and credibility.  This will harm the environment because environmental groups will be perceived as “paper tigers” unable to influence voters and the public.  This makes it harder to pass pro-environmental legislation or DEP initiatives. A set back for the environment.

A; Smith – Disagree with Bateman. Tittel/Pringle opposed LSP.  Gov. did the right thing and took them on. There are 200+ environmental groups that disagree with Tittle/Pringle but can’t speak out due to 501C3 status. There are many other groups that support the Gov. but won’t speak out because they are afraid of Tittel/Pringle.   

b) Anti-business climate – what can be done? DEP has worked extremely well with EDA and Gerold Zarro in Gov. Office. What more can be done?

c) Water Quality Management Planning rules – ant-development, takings and property rights

Smith went off. Big problem with WQMP rules. DEP planning to designate areas as non-sewer service areas based on old flawed maps and without knowledge or consent of land owners. This will shut down development. Big problem for land owners, builders, developers.  In designated NSSA, “you’re dead meat”. “My biggest beef is that this steals property rights – we did it in the Highlands.” This is “unfair to property owners”. “All these land owners whose land is about to be designated NSSA” should be aware. Oh, we’re careful not to trigger a legal taking, but we come close and steal property rights. DEP maps and aerial photo’s are flawed. Site in my district whre a COAH project is designated NSSA. I support Sarlo bill to place 2 year moratorium on implementation of new WQMP rules. Provide notice to property owners and opportunity to challenge DEP designations.  “Sorry if this sounds anti-environmental but I’ve already stolen 500,000 acres in this state” (Highlands?). Some NSSA lands broadly designated by mere “possibility” of T&E habitat. “We’ve taken 60% of the land area of the state in Planning Areas 3,4, and 5. You can’t build anything new there.” “If you own property call you county planning board and find out about NSSA designation”.

Mauriello pushed back effectively, acknowledged working to relax deadlines and be flexible, but new rules required because plans are so old and flawed, and don’t consider water supply, wetlands, and other environmental constraints that would prohibit the issuance of land use permits. Working on more notice to landowners. Working on maps – bog turtle habitat suitability improper in some places. TWA permits grandfathered. “My goal is to pre-empt the need for the Sarlo legislative moratorium bill – DEP is making concessions.” (we wrote about the Sarlo bill here)

d) Lame Duck Priorities – Smith:

            Forest stewardship

            ATV registration

            Greenwood Lake Commission fee authorization

            Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers – Barnegat Bay eutrophication

            Salwater fishing registration

            Dam restoration

Next Session priorities – Smith

            Focus on Barnegat Bay ecosystem (we wrote about Barnegat Bay here)

            Energy bills – renewables

 

 Alexauken Creek, West Amwell, NJ – healthy Category One stream buffer

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) provides enhanced regulatory protections for “exceptional” waters of the State, known as “Category One” or “C1″ streams. No disturbance of soils or vegetation is allowed by “major development” within a 300 foot wide vegetated stream buffer (on each side). Wide vegetated buffers protect water quality, provide plant and wildlife habitat, and reduce flooding risks.

On November 3, 2003 DEP proposed to classify the Alexauken Creek  a C1 stream. No doubt, DEP considered the above stretch of the Alexauken in West Amwell. According to DEP:

Delaware River Basin: Alexauken Creek –   The Department is proposing a Category One antidegradation designation for the entire length of the Alexauken Creek including all named and unnamed tributaries based on “exceptional ecological significance“. Data on the health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Alexauken Creek indicate low stress (non-impaired) to the aquatic community with a good diversity of intolerant organisms. The in-stream habitat quality assessment indicates an exceptional (optimal) habitat quality (see Table C). The Alexauken Creek received a good Fish IBI rating with 16 different species identified in the stream” (see @ page 10-11)

The Alexauken C1 proposal was adopted on August 2, 2004. Only the NJ Builders Association opposed it.

So, it’s crazy  that local farmers are allowed to ignore the importance of protected buffers and not only destroy stream vegetation, but graze cattle directly in the stream. This pollutes an important tributary to the Delaware River (upstream of Trenton’s water supply intake). It also increases flooding risks to downstream homes and the City of Lambertville.

cattle grazing in C1 stream and poor land management of buffer. Note how the buffer is clear-cut in the power line right of way

PSEG clearcuts vegetation in stream buffer, exacerbating erosion that ironically now threatens their own powerline

PSEG clear cuts vegetation in steep slopes in the stream buffer. This exacerbates soil erosion caused by grazing and poor farmland management practices:

Downstream of this farm, the flooding is made worse:

Alexauken floods after small rainfall (this is just feet downstream of farm depicted)

A a result, the banks of the Alexauken are severly eroding – compare the below eroded stretch of the stream to the forested buffers in top photo:

stream bank erosion caused by poor land use and poor land management

Here’s what the Alexauken looks like after intense rainfall (location of this photo is just upstream of the cattle shot, across the same farmer’s land):

Alexauken floods farmer's land

Here is the Alexauken, flooding just downstream of this farm – flood waters wash out road and threaten bridge, imposing millions of dollars of costs on taxpayers to replace them:

Alexauken flooding threatens to wash out road and bridge

Here’s where the Alexauken meets the Delaware inLambertville (after a small morning rain) – these tributaries make flooding far worse in Lambertville and Trenton:

Alexauken near D&R Canal and Delaware River just north of Lambertville

If one looks closely at the pictures of the cattle in the stream, one will note the footings of a major power transmission line. Note how the stream bank is eroding, thus jeopardizing the structural integrity of the power transmission line. Does PSEG care about land management threat to it’s power lines?

poorly managed land, grazing cattle in stream cause erosion that threatens power transmission tower

So, if State regulators at DEP don’t give a damn about protecting water quality and reducing flooding risks, maybe the BPU or PSEG will step in. If I recall, a tree fell on a power line in Ohio and that resulted in a blackout in the entire northeast. What would hapen if this transmission tower were to fall? If anyone even mentioned doing such a thing, I’m sure the Homeland Security folks would view it as a “eco-terrorism” concern. Maybe we ought to consider poor land management and soil erosion as a form of domestic terrorism – they are doing far more harm than alleged terrorists.

West Amwell Ordinance prohibits soil disturbance or destruction of vegetation in buffer

Grazing cattle in a C1 stream and PSEG practices of clear cutting vegetation in the protected stream buffer are unacceptable land management practices. We will bring this matter to the attention of all agencies with regulatory jurisdiction and an ability to stop it: DEP; Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District; State Agriculture Department; BPU; and West Amwell Township.

We’ll let you know about what we hear - but don’t hold your breath waiting for enforcement.

Hal Bozarth (L) & Tony Russo (R) lobbyists for chemical industry sign in at DEP today

I got a tip and was able to catch lobbyists for the chemical industry in the act. They met privately today with DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello. The meeting was to discuss, among other things, appointments to a controversial new DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB).

DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello

It is precisely these kind of off the record private lobbying meetings between DEP and regulated industry and developers that illustrate the need for more transparency at DEP.  We recently petitioned DEP to force public disclosure of these kinds of private meetings. That petition is currently before Commissioner Mauriello, who must make a decision shortly.

At the federal level, the Obama administration has emphasized greater transparency in government. In response, EPA Administrator  Lisa Jackson posts daily schedules of EPA managers on the EPA website, something Jackson explicitly rejected while NJ DEP Commissioner.

Yesterday, we filed a lawsuit seeking access to exactly these kinds of records that show chemical industry political intervention at DEP. 

The chemical industry is pressuring Mauriello to appoint the following industry scientists to the SAB:

Anne Masse – employed by Dupont 

John Gannon – also w/Dupont at Wilmington, De. plant

Joseph West – Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway NJ

Daniel Caldwell – Stout and Caldwell  Engineers and South Jersey Development Council

Public business done Behind Closed Doors - DEP Commissioner's Suite

DEP is an administrative agency that is required by law to make open and transparent decisions based on law, science, and the public interest, not politics in back room deals with lobbyists for special interests.

Chemical industry political lobbying has no place in the DEP decision-making process, and must be restricted. Current Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) laws already mandate reporting of these kind of lobbying attempts ”to influence government processes“.

But far stronger restrictions are required. Forcing public disclosure is a good first step in that process of minimizing the corrosive effects of special interests on DEP.

Lobbyists should be limited to these buildings:

Statehouse, Trenton, NJ

Legislative Annex, Trenton, NJ

We have been writing about behind the scenes efforts of politically powerful  polluters to exert improper influence on DEP scientists. We have called this the War on Science.

Dupont Chambers Works plant in Deepwater NJ is one of the worlds largest polluters. The plant manufactures PFOA & polluted groundwater with PFOA

Today we focus on the ugly tactics of Dupont.

But, first we put Dupont’s moves in context, and then present the game plan Dupont is following, via review of a superb new book by a scientific expert in the field.

We have documented an extremely troubling recent series of events that illustrate this war:

• DEP’s Chief Nuclear Engineer was demoted and transferred out of the nuclear safety program in retaliation for private remarks he made that questioned the nuclear industry’s influence on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the relicensing hearings on the Oyster Creek plant, one of the nation’s oldest and riskiest plants;
• A PFOA health risk assessment paper prepared by DEP scientists was “pulled from submission for publication” under orders from then DEP Commissioner Jackson;
• DEP Commissioner Jackson abolished the Division of Science and Research and used a bogus pretext to create a new external and potentially industry controlled Science Advisory Board. This move destroyed the independence of DEP science and a more than 20 years old effective scientific review process at DEP;
• The former Division of Science and Research Director, a woman with a PhD and 15 years of experience, was transferred to an administrative job in retaliation for defending scientific integrity;
• DEP issued a gag order in retaliation for DEP scientists’ release of a controversial Jersey City chromium health risk assessment. The new risk assessment concluded that chromium is a carcinogen and that current DEP standards are more than 200 times laxer than these new findings indicate are needed to protect public health. The gag order authorized DEP managers to hold completed scientific work in un-releasable draft form for an indefinite period; to restrict public disclosure under OPRA; and for intervention by political and DEP press office by allowing non scientists to conduct prepublication reviews of any controversial scientific reports;
•  We disclosed documents that revealed that DEP scientists had to run a political gauntlet to publish a risk assessment on a chemical that has spread to contaminate drinking water. The controversy concerned perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxic chemical manufactured by a NJ giant Dupont, used in nonstick cookware and stain resistant fabrics, such as “Scotchgard”.Those documents showed that DuPont was urgently pressing DEP regulators to lower a potentially multi-billion dollar clean-up liability for polluting groundwater. 
• In a hostile move, lawyers representing DuPont filed several  OPRA requests that personally targeted and intimidated the DEP scientists conducting the PFOA research. 
• Dupont was granted a highly unusual opportunity: on August 7, 2009,Dr. Robert Tardiff of the Sapphire Group, which is advising DuPont, presented his PFOA risk assessment to members of the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute. That same week, Tardiff privately met behind closed doors with DEP scientists and regulators;
• Facing a lawsuit, DEP was forced to released documents outlining how a health study of air pollution in Camden neighborhoods was re-written to allay industry objections. The released e-mails depict a clubby, closed door climate in which the state regulators seek to assuage industry concerns even while keeping the affected community in the dark; 
• An audit by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency faulted the quality and consistency of New Jersey science, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and technical programs for cleaning up toxic wastes, preserving wetlands and other key functions.

Scientific tactics in this war are laid out in detail in a wonderful new book by science professor David Michaels titled “Doubt is their Product – How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health”. Michaels is a professor at George Washington University, former Assistant Secretary for Environmental Safety and Health at the Department of Energy; and is now candidate for Administrator of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  

Michaels exhaustively documents how industry – starting with the tobacco, lead, and asbestos industries, whose tactics were embraced by the chemical industry – has “manufactured doubt” to frustrate regulation, and as a result, killed and poisoned thousands of Americans.  Using outright lies, denial, PR and then shifting to sophisticated “sound science”, industry is literally killing us.

Dr. Tardiff’s August 7, 2009 presentation of to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute scientists. Tardiff presented his own PFOA risk assessment to challenge the DEP risk assessment findings.

In my favorite chapter, “The Enronization of Science”, Michaels describes step by step exactly how a “classic uncertainty campaign” is conducted – I’ve seen it all at work here in NJ:

• paid industry scientist attack government regulation and conduct dubious “research” to manufacture doubt and uncertainty in order to delay and forego regulation;
• public relations groups mount PR and media campaigns to spin this science and mislead the American public;
• highly paid legions of lawyers (“the products defense industry”) are called into action to litigate and intervene to frustrate regulation;
• consulting firms, industry front groups, trade associations, and think tanks are formed to promote the industry’s economic interests and create an echo chamber for bogus scientific claims;
• Lobbyists work Congress and the Whitehouse to pressure regulators and thwart regulation

Michaels concludes with an urgent warning and appeal to scientists to wake up to what is going on and speak out to the American public:

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. Take global warming for example. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that there is adequate evidence of global warming to justify immediate intervention to reduce the human contribution. They understand that waiting for absolute certainty  is far riskier – and potentially far more expensive  – than acting responsibly now to control the causes of climate change. Opponents of action, led by the fossil fuels industry, delayed this policy debate by challenging the science with a classic uncertainty campaign. I need only cite a cynical memo that Republican political consultant Frank Luntz delivered to his clients in early 2003. In “Winning the Global Warming Debate”, Luntz wrote the following:

“Voters believe that there is no consensus   about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate…The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science” (emphasis in original)….  […]

Polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products tout “sound science”, but what they are promoting just sounds like science but isn’t. Only the truly naïve (if there are any of these folks left) will be surprised to learn that the sound science movement was the brainchild of Big Tobacco… George Orwell has given us a word fr such rhetoric. The vilification of any research that might threaten corporate interests as “junk science” and the sanctification of its own bought and paid for research as “sound science” is indeed Orwellian….

… The scientific enterprise is at a crossroads.  We need to understand what is going on in the name of “sound science” and what the consequences may be – and already have been – for public health.  At its heart, this book is about the way in which product defense consultants have shaped and skewed the scientific literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, an influenced policy decisions to the advantage of polluters. (emphases supplied)

In addition to the ugly attacks on DEP scientists by Dupont lawyers mentioned above, Dupont is engaged in a classic uncertainty campaign and war on science that so concerns professor Michaels.  

I attended Dupont consultant Dr. Tardiff’s August 7, 2009 presentation of to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute scientists. Tardiff presented his own PFOA risk assessment to challenge the DEP risk assessment findings. Tardiff followed classic “manufacture doubt” tactics by challenging the validity of the animal studies that show that PFOA is a human carcinogen. Yet despite this over the top attack, not one DWQI scientist publicly challenged Tardiff’s misleading and radical conclusions. Clearly, they were intimidated and reluctant to call Tardiff out.

A single one of the above actions would be a problem.

Taken together they are deeply disturbing.

We’ll keep you posted. 

In our next post, we will name names of industry scientists - including Dupont employees – that the chemical industry is pushing to control the new DEP Science Advisory Board.

[Update: Star Ledger covers this story:  N.J. environment group claims DEP denial of records request violated state law ]

We recently warned of a Hostile Takeover of DEP Science – Industry Seeks to Stack Board with Cronies , the latest in an orchestrated War on Science by politically powerful polluters and developers in NJ. The Star Ledger reported on that in a September 20, 2009 story:  Scientists line up to join DEP’s controversial new advisory panel.

Since then, we received additional leaked DEP documents and emails which show that the NJ Chemistry Council (the trade group and lobbyist for NJ’s chemical industries) is seeking to have Dupont and Merck scientists appointed members of a controversial new DEP Science Advisory Board. Similar industry efforts to stack federal Science Advisory Boards during the Bush administration were repudiated by scientists. A Science magazine editorial “Advice without Dissent” hit the nail on the head:

The Bush administration has made some unwise recent moves that undermine the process by which scientists provide advice to the U.S. government. The applicable current law (the Federal Advisory Committee Act), which requires these advisory bodies to “. . . be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and . . . not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest,” is more than empty boilerplate….

Instead of grappling with scientific ambiguity and shaping public policy using the best available evidence (the fundamental principle underlying public health and environmental regulation), we can now expect these committees to emphasize the uncertainties of health and environmental risks, supporting the administration’s antiregulatory views. And in those areas where there are deeply held conflicts in values, we can expect only silence. Regulatory paralysis appears to be the goal here, rather than the application of honest balanced science.

In fact, DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello is meeting with the Chemistry Council this Thursday  to discus SAB appointments. Commissioner Mauriello, in contrast to federal law that mandates balance and prohibits inappropriate influence by special interests,  has virtually unbounded discretion to appoint SAB members.

So, with some of the documents already in hand, I filed an OPRA request to obtain all of them. But in an attempt to keep this chemical industry campaign a covert war, DEP denied the OPRA request.

In response, today, PEER filed a lawsuit against DEP seeking all the documents. We are confident that we will prevail in this lawsuit and that the documents will disclose industry pressure to politicize science at DEP and protect polluters from DEP regulations.

This industry effort must be derailed. Formal industry control over DEP science would have profoundly detrimental impacts on the health of residents and the natural environment.

See below press release for details. 

For Immediate Release:  Monday, September 28, 2009

Contact:  Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

 Industry Moves to Take Over Jersey Eco-Science Board

DEP Sued to Force Release of Lobbying Messages for Industry-Backed Scientists    

Trenton — Industry wants to pack a new state environmental Science Advisory Board with its own scientists, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) which today filed a lawsuit to obtain public records regarding the industry lobbing effort.  Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Mark Mauriello is reportedly making final picks for the 12-member board this week after meeting with the Chemistry Industry Council this Thursday.

 The suit challenges the denial by DEP of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request filed by PEER seeking public records related to industry nominees and political lobbying for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) appointments.  The DEP broadly claimed that practically all the requested documents are exempt from OPRA on the grounds that the pending appointments will be treated like candidates for employment, and thus confidential.  Board members, however, are not DEP employees, nor would they be paid.

“DEP cannot make public records secret on the basis of an analogy,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe who filed the document request.  “Industry has a huge stake in getting friendly scientists on the board that will make the final recommendation on public health regulation.”

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, chaired by Chris Daggett, now an independent candidate for Governor.  The Science Advisory Board is supposed to substitute for the work formerly done by DEP scientists. 

Thus far, more than 100 nominations have been submitted.  Industry associations have put forward scientists from major manufacturers such as DuPont and Merck as well as from engineers and technical specialists from industry-oriented consultant firms.  This Thursday, October 1^st, Commissioner Mauriello, who chooses the board members, will meet behind closed doors with the Chemistry Industry Council of New Jersey, the primary lobby group representing state-based manufacturers.   

 In recent months, DEP scientific studies have been the subject of intense industry lobbying pressure to amend or suppress, on public health topics ranging from the effects of chemicals, such as PFOAs made by DuPont, to cement dust blowing through Camden neighborhoods.  The Administrative Order creating the SAB specifies a conflict of interest review of board nominees but it is not clear what specific rules will be applied, except that members are not supposed to act on matters in which they have a “financial or personal interest” – terms left undefined.

 “It appears that industry will soon be providing the final edits on all scientific work done at DEP,” added Wolfe.  “Without transparency in the selection process, there will always be the doubt that this board will more concerned with political science than environmental science.”

The OPRA lawsuit was filed today on behalf of PEER by Michael Pisauro of the Princeton-based firm of  Frascella & Pisauro, LLC.

 ### 

 Read the PEER lawsuit

 View DEP denial of record release under OPRA

 Review the Science Advisory Board charter

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/

Look at the ongoing war by industry against DEP science

Examine the tactics of DuPont