WolfeNotes.com

DEP Commissioner Complains About Political Pressure from the “Front Office”

[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 reform 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.

[Update: There were about 30 empty seats in the back and there weren’t many builder types at the NJBIA event. Chris Christie had a NJ Builders Assc. event the same day. I wonder what Christie promised the Builders? Were those empty seats builders? Or did the entire corporate crowd just migrate from the NJBIA breakfast to the NJBA luncheon?]

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.

Hazen solicited responses from DEP staffers 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.

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

7. The Clean Water Act’s 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, are 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 photos 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

[Update below]

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.

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:

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:

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):

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:

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

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?

[Update: 10/20/15 – just came across this gem of a statement by PSEG in a Susquehanna Roseland power line BPU petition – check i out in light of the above photo:

For the most part, it is my understanding that structure replacement will take place within the existing Right-of-Way in as near a location as the existing structures, and thus there will be minimal net loss of wetlands or critical resources. In the isolated event that an additional pole must be placed in a critical area because of engineering constraints, the permanent impact will be isolated to the footprint of the structure base or foundation. Any permanent impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of the governing entity PSE&G has proposed alternative locations for both switching stations in an effort to reduce the environmental impacts.  (@p.80) ~~~ end update]

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.

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.

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).

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

 

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:

Dupont Lawyers Target DEP Scientists – While Paid Dupont Consultants “Manufacture Doubt”

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.

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 Scotchguard.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.

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 naive (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. Tardiffâs 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.