Chemicals in Schools
The Assembly Environment Committee today was scheduled to hear two bills related to the controversial issue of children’s exposure to toxic chemicals while in school. Wisely avoiding opening a huge can of worms, the Committee took no testimony and decided to table the bills for further consideration by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). See:”The Chemical Schools Cleanout Pilot Program
(A1313(McKeon/Stender)http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A1500/1319_I1.HTM – a bill to establish a “school chemical management program” (A 1769 (WatsonColeman/Scalera)http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2000/1769_I1.HTM
As demonstrated by a series of fiasco’s across the state, NJ has major problems with potential exposure of children to toxic chemicals while at school. Had these bills been heard, they would have been panned as avoiding the real problems (See:A Tale of Two Toxic Schools – What are we telling our kids when we put them in these environments? http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/02/a_tale_of_two_toxic_schools_ho.html
The problems stem from NJ’s flawed DEP toxic site cleanup program. Under the “urban brownfields” logic, laws that previously sought to cleanup sites to protect human health now are focused almost exclusively on promoting economic redevelopment. Lax DEP oversight provides Incentives to cut corners – often at the cost of proper cleanup. Due to a large number of toxic sites (over 16,000) and a scarcity of develop-able clean land, reckless urban brownfields redevelopment laws are now impacting school sites and children as well. For an absolutely mind numbing expose’ of the problem, see: New Jersey Program Bought Polluted Lands for Low-income Schools –
“In what critics consider one of the more blatant examples of environmental racism, a fund supposedly intended to give a leg up to impoverished pupils of color was used to put them at risk while favoring private developers” http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3800
Here are illustrations of the just some of the problems yet to be addressed by state officials:
1. No Parental Notification Parents are typically the last to know if there are toxic problems at school. In Paramus – an upscale Bergen County community – the discovery of a small pile of pesticide contaminated soil caused a huge furor, and forced the resignation of the Superintendent, who had failed to disclose and then covered up the problem. A bill has been introduced to mandate parental notification of toxic problems at schools S480(Gordon – D/Bergen)http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/S0500/480_I1.HTM
Yet, at a controversial school site in Allentown, contrary to the community’s demands, DEP approved of capping and “blending” highly contaminated pesticide soils at the school site. There are scores of schools with far greater risks than Paramus where information intentionally has been withheld from parents -including the fact that schools are located on or nearby partially cleaned up toxic sites. Parents in nearby Garfield didn’t know their kids were going to a school where a cleanup was not yet complete, or that the school foundation itself served as a “cap” in the DEP approved cleanup plan (imagine that: sending your child to a building that technically and legally was part of a toxic site cleanup.)
2. Lax oversight/shoddy school construction.
NJ State Inspector General Cooper issued a scathing report to former Governor Codey regarding mismanagement of the Schools Construction Corporation(SCC).http://www.state.nj.us/oig/pdf/njscc_preliminary_report.pdf
Among the mismanagement, IG Cooper found that over $330 million had been spent on purchase of sites “patently unsuitable” for schools – this does not include millions in resulting toxic cleanup costs for contaminated sites that never should have been bought.See:RADIOACTIVE SCHOOL SITE IS TIP OF NEW JERSEY TOXIC ICEBERG — Over 100 School Site approvals expedited under Secret Deal http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=679
The SCC has reckless judgment as well as deep pockets, while DEP looks the other way and refuses to tighten cleanup standards at school sites. DEP even signed off on an SCC plan to build a school at a contaminated former Manhattan Project site in Union City. In blowing the whistle on that site, NJ PEER disclosed a secret Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the SCC and the DEP. http://www.peer.org/docs/nj/06_24_4_dep_moa.pdf
To implement the State’s effort to expedite school construction, the MOA explicitly relaxed safeguards and expedited DEP environmental review of toxic school sites (see: NEW JERSEY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION REFORM GETS FAILING MARKS — No Environmental Reviews Prior to Building More Schools on Toxic Sites http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=899
As a result of this disclosure and the Union City fiasco, the MOA was revoked. Since then, the Legislature has abolished the SCC and replaced it with the Schools Development Authority (SDA). But many underlying problems remain. See: TOXIC SCHOOL SCANDAL SPOTLIGHTS WEAK NEW JERSEY LAW — Parents Get No Notice of Child’s Exposure in Deregulated State Clean-Up Program http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=864
3. Poor School Siting, reckless land acquisition, lax environmental oversight
4. Toxic chemical vapors seeping into schools
There are several examples of where schools have been impacted by toxic vapors seeping into the school – a Franklin (Warren Co.) school was impacted by solvents from a federal Superfund site. Parents and children in schools and day care facilities in Gloucester, Middlesex and Ocean Counties have been affected as well. Thousands of homes are at unknown risks.
5. Partial cleanup, caps & engineering controls
6. Environmental Injustice
Scores of schools built on toxic waste sites are in poor, black, and disadvantaged “Abbott District” communities. For example, th Early Childhood Development Center (ECDC) in Camden is located on a former dump. Toxic chemicals in soils and groundwater exceed DEP toxic cleanup standards and DEP is not taking enforcement action against the original polluters. I was told by workers at the site that construction had unearthed old garbage, debris, tires and contaminated soils. This is a racist policy that puts children at risk and diverts scarce educational dollars..
7. Pollution sources nearby poisoning kids
The health risks of toxic exposure to kids are not limited to urban areas or toxic waste sites. Air pollution sources nearby schools – such as chemical facilities or truck stops – poison kids too:
8. Real estate deals and developers rule – Flawed Brownfields Policy
State toxic site cleanup laws promote redevelopment at the expense of public health.The DEP needs to regain control of the construction industry and the movement of toxic contaminated soils, Under current law, DEP has very little oversight – an industrial construction site is treated no differently than a school yard. This is crazy.