WolfeNotes.com

NJ Has A Long Legacy Of Toxic Hexavalent Chromium Pollution

But DEP Lacks A Drinking Water Standard For That Chemical

Christie DEP Rejected Scientists Recommendations For A Standard Back in 2010

California just adopted the nation’s first drinking water standard for the toxic chemical hexavalent chromium:

BY RACHEL BECKER

Cal Matters

APRIL 17, 2024

In an effort to protect more than 5 million Californians from a cancer-causing contaminant, state regulators today set a new standard that is expected to increase the cost of water for many people throughout the state.

The State Water Resources Control Board unanimously approved the nation’s first drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium, which is found naturally in some California groundwater as well as water contaminated by industries.

Now water suppliers will be forced to install costly treatment to limit the chemical in water to no more than 10 parts per billion — equivalent to about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

For the entire article, see

https://calmatters.org/environment/water/2024/04/california-water-standard-chromium

New Jersey DEP has not set a drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium – the most toxic form – despite a legacy of major chromium pollution and DEP regulatory scandals, see:

• Garfield Chromium Case Another Vindication of DEP Whistleblower

• NEW JERSEY SLAPS GAG ORDER ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS – Embarrassing Chromium Study Prompts Management Review of Scientific Findings

• CHROMIUM FAR DEADLIER THAN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS INDICATE – Scores of Capped New Jersey Contaminated Sites Will Have to Be Re-Evaluated

• TEFLON COATS PUBLIC AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE – Jackson Sought to Have DEP Study Pulled from Publication

• CHROMIUM POSES HIGHER LUNG CANCER RISK IN NEW JERSEY CITIES – State Ignored Staff Warnings of Continued Exposure Even in “Remediated” Sites

• NEW JERSEY FACING CHROMIUM EMERGENCY – 1 IN 10 CANCER RISKS – State Scientist Reveals DEP Cover-Up; Demand for Federal Intervention

• High Chromium Danger Known by New Jersey Leaders Since 2007- Lisa Jackson and DEP Brass Decided to Proceed As If New Data Did Not Exist

In fact, the Christie DEP ignored the recommendations of DEP scientists to adopt a stringent standard back in 2010.

The Drinking Water Quality Institute’s meeting minutes for September 10, 2010:

3. Subcommittee Summaries—Subcommittee Chairpersons Health Effects—L. McGeorge: She noted first that the Subcommittee had adjusted its workplan, delaying action on radium and tertiary butyl alcohol to the first quarter of 2011; they would consider adding nitrates to their workload at a future meeting. Second, after A. Stern’s presentation at the previous Health Effects Subcommittee (HE) meeting on the slope factor developed by the NJDEP Chromium Workgroup for oral exposure to hexavalent chromium, the HE had accepted this slope factor as the basis for a Health-based MCL recommendation for hexavalent chromium at its September meeting. L. McGeorge distributed copies of a memorandum to the Testing and Treatment Subcommittees, recommending a health-based maximum contaminant level (HBMCL) of 0.07 μg/L for hexavalent chromium based on this slope factor.

Since then, this recommendation has been memory holed. See:

• The Chromium Pipe Treatment

The most recent chromium scandal is now playing out as a result of a national Report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

Based on EPA data, EWG that found that over 200 million Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of the carcinogen in drinking water, see the Newsweek story:

• CHROMIUM-6 FOUND AT ELEVATED LEVELS IN WATER OF 200 MILLION AMERICANS

“Bill Wolfe, with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that protects government whistleblowers, says the EPA is “absolutely not” doing its job to protect the public from chromium, and that it’s a case that “illustrates undue influence—agency capture—by major corporate polluters.”

The EWG national Report prominently featured New Jersey, and in doing so exposed gross negligence by the Christie DEP.

The Christie DEP ignored DEP’s own scientists’ recommendations to set a chromium drinking water standard of 0.07 parts per billion, recommendations issued way back in September 2010.

 The California standard exposes this scandalous DEP record.

Who will tell the people?

Are there any real environmental reporters still on the beat in NJ?

EPA Touts New Community Air Toxics Monitoring Program In Buffalo NY

Community activists have long demanded better air pollution monitoring in their neighborhoods, particularly in environmental justice communities where homes and schools are located very close to massive toxic polluters.

I have written numerous times to criticize DEP’s hazardous air pollution control program for failures to adequately monitor and regulate major toxic air pollution risks and impacts on nearby communities and hold polluters accountable.

So today, I was surprised to read a Biden EPA press release that basically admitted that EPA air pollution monitoring is not adequate.

But EPA seems completely out of touch with the fact that these flaws are national in scope and systemic in the EPA air pollution permitting program and can not be remedied by a one shot EPA local grant.

And EPA is clueless to the fact that the community air monitoring should be paid for by the polluters, not by taxpayers via EPA grants: (EPA press release)

EPA Highlights Air Pollution Monitoring Project in Buffalo, New York

NEW YORK (April 16, 2024) – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia and Dr. Eun-Hye Enki Yoo, Associate Professor, University at Buffalo and Senior Pastor George F. Nicholas, Lincoln Memorial United Methodist Church as well as other dignitaries gathered in Buffalo, NY to highlight a new collaborative project led by the University at Buffalo, SUNY. The university received almost $500,000 to deploy low-cost air pollution sensors at sampling sites in the residences of the underserved African American community in Buffalo. They will use this data to develop a community-specific air quality prediction model by integrating the new measurements with existing data. EPA specifically awarded funding, partly under Inflation Reduction Act, to increase monitoring in areas that are underserved to help them better understand what they are exposed to and to help them work with local and other officials to help address the sources of pollution.

“Knowledge is power and when people know more about what they are breathing, they can better participate in decisions that can address that pollution. This investment will provide the people of Buffalo with access to local air monitoring networks, which will raise community knowledge of air quality,” said Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia. “The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized direct community participation in information gathering to help reduce harmful air pollution.”

Yes, knowledge is power – but why isn’t EPA mandating this kind of monitoring in air pollution permits issued to major polluters and making them pay for it?

A Phone Call From The Front Office Overrides Science

I just came across my 2008 testimony to the NJ Senate Environment Committee in opposition to the proposed privatization of NJ’s toxic site cleanup program and the creation of a privatized Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program (read the transcript).

I just loved this quote – which was based on 14 years of DEP experience at the highest policymaking levels and close coordination with the Governor’s Office and legislative leadership- that speaks volumes:

Again, the term priority economic development is used in that section. I don’t know what that means. That, to me, means a phone call to the Governor’s Office and over to the Commissioner’s office. That’s what a priority economic activity is to me.

That’s how the game is played, and it’s only gotten worse over the last 16 years.

Word.

I explained the implications of this in a 2019 post:

First, DEP has no credible scientific basis to make any statement about the performance of the cleanup program because DEP has failed to implement or release to the public the “Remedial Priority System” (RPS) mandated by the Legislature over a decade ago. Without the RPS, DEP is literally flying blind and making shit up.

The legislature mandated that DEP adopt and implement the “Remedial Priority System” (RPS), which not only provides a valid, structured, risk based scientific basis for classifying and managing toxic sites, it also includes triggers for direct DEP oversight of high risk sites.

The Legislature also mandated that DEP publicly disclose a list of risk based sites in NJ.

The RPS originally was required by provisions of the Spill Act enacted over 30 years ago.More recently, the RPS agains was mandated by the 2009 Site Remediation Reform Act (“SRRA”, phonetically as in SURRENDER).

The legislature mandated that the RPS be adopted and implemented in DEP’s cleanup program by May, 7, 2010 (one year after enactment). DEP has flouted that legislative mandate for over 9 years.

Without a RPS, DEP is flying blind and has no scientific or factual basis to make any credible public statement.

The DEP’s priorities are set by other means.

The End (Free Assange!) Does Not Justify The Means

Opportunistically Making Right Wing Legal Arguments And Suppressing Critics

Last night, I read an article about the Assange extradition case in the UK at Consortium News, an outfit I strongly support, see:

• US Issues Assurances on Assange

I was shocked to read that Assange’s legal advocates were arguing that he did not have Constitutional Rights in the US, most critically, the protection of the First Amendment and that Consortium News was reporting this as a fact:

In  USAID v. Alliance for Open Society, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that non-U.S. citizens outside the U.S. don’t possess constitutional rights. Both former C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo and Gordon Kromberg, Assange’s U.S. prosecutor, have said Assange does not have First Amendment protection.

Because of the separation of powers in the United States, the executive branch’s Justice Department can’t guarantee to the British courts what the U.S. judicial branch decides about the rights of a non-U.S. citizen in court, said Marjorie Cohn, law professor and former president of the National Lawyers’ Guild.

“Let’s assume that … the Biden administration, does give assurances that he would be able to raise the First Amendment and that the [High] Court found that those were significant assurances,” Cohn told Consortium News‘ webcast CN Live! last month.

So I submitted a reader comment to clarify this issue by writing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all “persons”, not just US citizens and to distinguish the case cited (i.e.USAID/Open Society) as mistakenly applied and not applicable to the Assange case, which involves a criminal prosecution in US courts on US soil involving 1st Amendment rights of a publisher and individual.

Shortly thereafter, I got a highly unusual email from Consortium News editor and reporter on this story Joe Lauria, I man I have high regard for and never interacted with before.

Challenging my comment, Joe wrote:

You write: There are plenty of cases that found that the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons”, not just US Citizens

Can you please provide several examples of these cases?

I replied, taking exception to Joe’s challenge of a reader comment and demand for case law support:

Joe – first of all, I note that you have not posted my comment.

Second, it has LONG been the legal and political position of the ACLU and NLG that the bill of rights and the constitution applies to “people” (not just US citizens).

This is obviously the progressive position to advocate. Despite the fact that it may be more advantageous to deny this legal and political position in the Assange case as a rationale to get the charges dismissed, the larger impact is to undermine a long held and important legal position. This is hypocrisy I must call out.

We are not talking about military tribunals and the Yoo memo.

I am not a lawyer, but a quick Google suggests several cases:

Plyler V. Doe (1982)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538

“Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 345 U. S. 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 163 U. S. 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67,426 U. S. 77 (1976). [Footnote 9]

Here is a law review article: (Georgetown law)

• Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

“the [Supreme] Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are “persons” within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.”

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

I could do real research on this if I had to – but I really would rather not.

The point is, in the ambiguity, the principled posture we should be taking is that all persons have US Constitutional rights – especially criminal defendants and First amendment rights –  despite the fact that this may undermine the narrative or legal tactics on Assange.

Wolfe

Joe fired back, digging his hole even deeper, by making another absurd distinction. Joe wrote:

First of all, we have not published your comment because we need you to back up what you claim. You have provided just one example, and it is not applicable. “The [Supreme] Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Constitution,”  it says.

Assange is not living “among us.” He has been abroad the entire time and the Supreme Court case being cited deals with foreign nationals living abroad.

We are not an advocacy site but a news organization. Marjorie Cohn is a lawyer and she knows what she is talking about.

First of all, Joe is  confusing Marjorie Cohn’s valid point about separation of powers with the US Constitution and Supreme Court’s doctrine on how the Constitution applies to foreign nationals!

Second, he is flat out wrong, because Assange will be tried in the US in US courts! He will not be on foreign soil.

Third, he provided a false justification for not publishing my comment. Virtually no reader comments at Consortium News are required to provide factual support of their comments, never mind multiple case law support. That’s just a lie. Go and read the comments! Some are insane!

And Joe responded further with flat out lies, claiming that all comments on Consortium News articles are required to be supported by facts. Joe wrote:

You are wrong. We always require backing up with facts, that’s why we don’t publish a lot of comments.  Secondly you are wrong because the case you cited refers to non US citizens living inside the US when the Assange case is about someone outside the US.

The Assange supporters are off the rails on the First Amendment issue.

They are taking a diametrically opposite view of the US Constitution than the ACLU and National Lawyers Guild have advocated for decades!

And Joe Lauria is suppressing dissent.

Both the ACLU and National lawyers Guild have long argued that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to all “persons” not just US citizens. Now, because it helps their legal case in UK extradition, they are claiming that he does not have those rights. Why would a left – progressive legal advocate (ACLU, NLG) argue that foreign nationals do NOT have Constitutional rights while being prosecuted in US Courts on US soil? Even the New York Times’ lawyers support that view.

The law is clear – Assange has free speech and due process rights here in the US.

Skeptics don’t need to take my word for it – read this law review article: (Georgetown Law Review)

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights

As Citizens?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

The end (free Assange) does not justify the means!!!

[End Notes:

1. In case it’s not clear, I am stating that the Constitution applies to the crimes alleged, as well as to the judicial process, ie. that Assange can seek dismissal based on claims that his actions were 1st amendment protected.

2. Here is the superseding Indictment of Assange – almost everything he is accused of is the function of a reporter and/or a publisher:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment

3. Even The NY Times’ lawyers wrote that, so it is shocking that Assange’s defenders have not and instead made the opposite point. Read the NY Times editorial:

• Julian Assange’s Indictment Aims at the Heart of the First Amendment

4. For those who suspect I’m some right wing troll, see this post from 2011:

• Free Bradley Manning

[Update: 4/19/24 – I am getting strong pushback on this – so here is my reply to the Assange supporters I am criticizing:

You miss my point. Of course, I oppose extradition and am completely aware of the murderous persecution intentions of US DoJ (driven by CIA).

Strategically, my point is that the extradition arguments and activism should not undermine First Amendment activism. Instead of saying Assange does NOT have 1stA rights, activist should HIGHLIGHT the violation of 1st Amendment that the indictment represents. This could maximize pressure on Biden, who is politically vulnerable right now.

Legally, the Assange legal team, (if extradited) would file a motion to dismiss, based on violation of the 1st A. This is legally solid and could provide political cover for Biden to defy the CIA and rescind the indictment, or file a brief with the court in agreement with Assange and let the Judge dismiss.

This is not only the best political strategy, it may be the only legal strategy available, as it’s obvious that the deal is in. More delay just means Assange dies in Belmarsh. Fight Biden on this now, when he is desperate politically. Even The NY Times would back that fight.

The repression happening at Columbia University right now is the Berkeley Free Speech moment. The tide is turning in our favor. Timing is right for massive street heat.

Thoreau Set The Moral Standard

Genocide And Nuclear Threats Violate It

Henry Thoreau set the moral standard on whether a citizen had an obligation to withhold payment of  federal income tax and go to jail in his famous essay, see:

• Tax Day Essay: “On Civil Disobedience”

Thoreau could not pay his taxes because his money would support the federal government’s policies on slavery and the invasion of and imperial war on Mexico.

Thoreau wrote:

If one were to tell me that this were a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probably that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. … But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun, and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact, that the country so over-run is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

The United States government currently is replicating similar moral atrocities in the Ukraine proxy war, the dirty war on Syria (and others), and the support of Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank.

Similarly, the Biden administration has engaged in warmongering and gunboat diplomacy on Taiwan and China.

The US Congress is appropriating hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on war.

Nuclear armageddon is on the table.

Thus, the case for taxpayer revolt and rebellion is well beyond and far more egregious than Thoreau’s historical origins.

Today, I filed my taxes and pledged to pay on line at some future point.

I hoped that this might be part of the tax revolt movement and send a signal to IRS and the federal government.

But, first of all, my tiny tax burden will have no impact and to be honest, if push comes to shove, I’m willing to pay late fees but I am a coward and am not willing to go to jail, even for Thoreau’s brief incarceration. Been there and done that, and just one night in jail is enough to drive a man insane.

I am so sickened by my government and I’m not sure what else to do, but starving the military beast is clearly justified and necessary.

When the government supports genocide in my name and with my tax dollars, in principle I’m with Hannah Arendt:

As Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” the only morally reliable people are not those who say “this is wrong” or “this should not be done,” but those who say “I can’t.” They know that as Immanuel Kant wrote: “If justice perishes, human life on earth has lost its meaning.” And this means that, like Socrates, we must come to a place where it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. We must at once see and act, and given what it means to see, this will require the surmounting of despair, not by reason, but by faith.

What I lack is the courage of my convictions (in terms of going to jail).