Erosion of public right to know – DEP reverting to Whitman era
Back in 2004, when DEP scientists assembled the initial round of just 6 months of data on drinking water well contamination submitted under the recently enacted Private Well Testing Act, agency head Bradley M. Campbell made it a priority to inform NJ residents of the health risks posed by polluted wells and educate the public about the need to sample wells.
In a March 2004 press release, Campbell warned:
“The results demonstrate the importance of testing residents’ drinking water sources for a variety of contaminants that may need treatment to ensure a safe supply,” said Commissioner Campbell. “When contamination issues arise, county and local health officials step in to assist residents taking corrective action.”
Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner NJDEP 2002 – 2006“Families have the right to know whether their drinking water is safe when purchasing homes with private wells. “This program is successful due to support from local and county health officers across the state who provide information to persons involved with the private well testing process.”
(see: DEP Releases Initial Results of Private Well Testing Program
Home Buyers Learn of Water Quality during Property Transactions
http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2004/04_0015.htm
Campbell was acting aggressively to reverse an informal “policy” of the Whitman Administration’s DEP, whereby scientific data – particularly with respect to controversial public health risks – was ignored, withheld, supressed and/or spun in a way to to downplay risks and avoid regulation of industry.
Unfortunately, DEP’s recent handling of the latest Private Well Testing Act data strongly suggests that – due to lack of leadership – DEP is reverting back to the Whitman model – don’t ask/don’t tell.
The initial 2004 results (of 5,179 wells sampled during first 6 months of the program) showed that 8% failed to meet drinking water standards. Those disturbing results prompted DEP Commissioner Campbell to accelerate and issue an interim public Report and Statewide press release to warn the public.
Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner NJDEPNow, 4 years later, after over 51,000 wells have been sampled, DEP has found that more than 12.5% of wells failed to meet drinking water standards and are unsafe. The failure rate increased by more than 50% (8% – 12.5%) and the number of wells sampled increased tenfold.
Yet this huge 50% increase in the failure rate and growing statewide extent of the problem apparently is of no interest to DEP, at least according to Barker Hamill, who oversees the PWTA program. Hamill cavalierly dismissed concerns and assumed – with no supporting data – that “a lot” of NJ households with polluted wells have treatment systems:
“Barker Hamill, DEP assistant director of water-supply operations, said the agency had not done more outreach because the report was not “particularly new information.”
A 2004 report outlined similar results, he said.
However, that report, based on tests of 5,179 wells from September 2002 to March 2003, found that 8 percent failed to meet standards. The new report shows a 50 percent rise in contaminated wells” (emphasis mine).
… Hamill termed New Jersey’s latest report more suited for “internal scientific interest . . . a statistical presentation for the counties. We haven’t had people asking for this type of stuff.”
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20080829_N_J__finds_many_private_wells_contaminated.html
Hamill mislead the public to downplay the results:
“Barker Hamill, the DEP’s assistant director for water supply operations, said the results were consistent with a previous analysis of water tests and are no cause for alarm.
I don’t think anyone is hugely surprised,” he said. “These are raw water test results. People are not necessarily being exposed to these contaminants. I expect a lot of these wells have treatment on them.” http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/UPDATES01/80828005/1005/NEWS01
Someone needs to ask Hamill the following tough questions:
1. How can you call the 2008 data “not new information” when the failure rate increased by more than 50% and 5 years of implementation experience has exposed major flaws in the law and regulations?
2. How can you call the Report only for “internal scientific purposes” when DEP prominently issued the 2004 Report publicly with press release warnings?
3. How can you call the 2008 Report “consistent with the previous [2004] Report” when the failure rate increased by more than 50% and DEP’s own “case study” in Byram highlights major flaws in the design of the program?
4. On what basis do you assume that “a lot” of NJ homes with polluted wells have treatment systems? What does “a lot” mean?
If satisfactory answers are not provided and problems immediately corrected (including public apology and clarification of these misleading press remarks), Mr. Hamill should be asked to retire.
(full disclosure: I worked for Campbell at the time in 2004. I was forced out of DEP as a whistleblower in 1994 by Governor Whitman for disclosing memo’s to the Governor that exposed her efforts to falsify and suppress science that showed significant health risks due to mercury contamination in freshwater fish).
[Update: 8/30/08 – just checked the DEP webpage to see if they had gotten around to issuing a press release on the PWTA Report. Not yet, but I did find that DEP made it a priority to issue a “good news” release about lifting the Delaware shellfish ban, but not “bad news” about drinking water wells.
http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2008/08_0043.htm
Legally, there is only so much the Department can do. Property owners get excited if these results get published because of concern that their property values will plummet. And if someone is purchasing a home, there are many tests that are performed by the purchaser, such as a housing inspection, and I imagine, tests of the well water.
In addition, the DEP works with county health departments, who then contact the homeowners of contaminated wells. The DEP has also provided hundreds if not thousands of Point of Entry Treatment (POET) systems to homeowners, which are then sampled on a regular basis. The samples include pre- and post treatment sampling.
There is only so much that the state can do. The local health departments do even more. When the point is reached that it is economically feasible to provide a municipal source of drinking water, then Publicly Funded Site Remediation makes state funds available for that too.
Also, there are many factors that come into play with sampling of private wells. Homes that have copper piping will have lead solter that will increase the lead concentrations after the water enters the house (which is why people are told to use cold water when cooking). Most homes are not set up to sample the water directly from the well since that would involve removing the pump. So the water is sampled as close to the point of entry as possible, usually prior to the holding tank. Samples are also collected from the faucet. Any amount of aeration will reduce volatile compounds such as benzene. So the water being drunk at the tap is usually cleaner than what enters the house. In addition, the drinking water standards are very protective. It’s the same as the directions on most medicines. …there is a little leeway before real damage is done. There is a built-in safety factor.
We are exposed to chemicals everywhere. Take a look at what is in a can of cola. There is no way to avoid exposure, especially in a place like NJ. It’s similar to vapor intrusion sampling. There are many tests that are totally invalidated because of things like the installation of a new floor (glues, carpets made from petroleum) or the gas, solvents, etc. stored in the average garage.
Add to that the errors inherent in sampling, transport of samples, and in the lab (yes, even NJ certified labs have errors) and you have a large margin of error. It doesn’t make sense to sound the alarm in such cases. Your targeting of Mr. Hamill is uncalled for.
Thanks for the info unprovincial, it will be useful to readers..
But press releases and public advisories are virtually free and a good way to get the word out. It can be done without raising alarm.
Changes in law and regulations don’t cost DEP a dime either. There are ways to change the law and regulations to fix problems, like notification, and a requirement that DEP track down pollution sources – how the hell can anyone understnad what’s going on if the sample results adn well locations are CONFIDENTIAL?
THe law elevates REAL ESTATE and PROPERTY VALUES above PUBLIC HEALTH!
Here’s is what I told the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“Wolfe, of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, contended that New Jersey wasn’t trumpeting the results because “if there are more than 50,000 homes with problem wells, they could all theoretically get on the phone today. Real estate deals could go down. This could create problems and headaches.”
And you semed to miss my point on leadership and Mr. Hamill.
I represented the DEP Commissioner on the work group that was formed to put the 2004 Report together (and issue press releases et cetera). There is a deep resistance within DEP bureaucracy to release data that could alarm the public or be perceived as “bad news”.
Hamill is a career bureaucrat – the real problem lies at the top.
Do I have to name names?
Here is a similar debate in New York State:
Opinions flow freely at speakout on well testing
Mid-Hudson News Network
08/30/2008
POUGHKEEPSIE – Dutchess County residents at a hearing this week argued the two sides of the latest effort to mandate the testing of private wells.
“Targeted testing is not scientific, it is Russian roulette,” Hopewell Junction resident Nancy Foster said during the speakout session on Thursday. “In our community, we have houses that sit side by side, one with contamination and one without. Unsuspecting homeowners deserve to be protected.”
Foster lives on Creamery Road, near the Hopewell Precision EPA Superfund site where chemicals were dumped several decades ago, contaminating several wells in the area.
The new well-testing bill – approved by the county Legislation but facing a possible veto by County Executive William Steinhaus – would mandate the testing of any private well in the county at the time of property’s sale. The seller would incur the cost of the test, estimated at around $600.
The public hearing was required by county law before Steinhaus can take action on the bill. But Steinhaus wasn’t at the meeting to offer his own comments on the issue, and his absence angered many who attended.
Another Creamery Road resident, Anne Kover, argued that if a similar law had been passed 20 years ago, before the chemical TCE, was found in her well, her teenage son wouldn’t have the neurological disorders from which he suffers.
Her son, Matthew Kover, 18, also spoke at the hearing.
“My mom knows there are some things I can and can’t do,” he said, struggling to get his words out.
“If you pass this bill,” he said, as if speaking to Steinhaus, “there won’t be other kids like me.”
Comments against the bill also were made at the hearing.
“There is no scientific basis for this law. This is not helping those who aren’t selling homes,” said East Fishkill resident Joseph Petinella.
LaGrange resident James Hanson said residents shouldn’t be saying “the sky is falling when it’s not.”
Hanson said science “should be the dictating force here, not emotion, not passion. If we have an issue, then we need to address it.”
Hanson also said that if homeowners are concerned about their wells, they can have them tested on their own.
“I think it’s incumbent upon you, if you have this fear, to take this upon yourselves,” he said. “This is not supposed to be a mandated item.”
unprovincial – what do you make of the lead data (showing 18% failure rate)?
DEP rejected this data.
But could it be due to more corrosive water leaching lead from plumbing?
Regardless of source (raw or tap) people are being exposed
DEP has no data to conclude that treatment systems (POETs’) prevent exposure. That is a highly misleading claim for Hamill to make.
The group that wrote the report is being cut from DEP. So, hope you don’t expect to see unbiased technical information being released by the DEP any time soon.
Dear disseddep – Cna you provide ore information on the budget cuts or layoffs you are talking about?
Is the bureau or program itself being eliminated?
Division of Science and research tech support?
The way to fight budget cuts is to gather public support opposing them. One of the best ways to avoid budget cuts is to show the public how important your work is (and releasing good technical Reports is one means of doing so.) THe worst way is to quietly negotiated in the rooom with the Administration.
I’ve heard nothing from DEP staffers or CWA about this – privately or in things like the newspaper.
Now that this unit’s work is before the public, I’m sure reporters and the public would be interested in knowing that this important program is being eliminated.
Send me info – in confidence – at:
PEER
PO Box #1
Ringoes, NJ
Dear disseddep – Can you provide more information on the budget cuts or layoffs you are talking about?
Is the bureau or program itself being eliminated?
Division of Science and research tech support?
The way to fight budget cuts is to gather public support opposing them. One of the best ways to avoid budget cuts is to show the public how important your work is (and releasing good technical Reports is one means of doing so.) THe worst way is to quietly negotiated in the rooom with the Administration.
I’ve heard nothing from DEP staffers or CWA about this – privately or in things like the newspaper.
Now that this unit’s work is before the public, I’m sure reporters and the public would be interested in knowing that this important program is being eliminated.
Send me info – in confidence – at:
PEER
PO Box #1
Ringoes, NJ
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » According to DEP: Real Estate Values Trump Public Right to Know About Risks From Nearby Toxic Sites
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » Radioactive Contaminants in NJ Drinking Water Go Un-Regulated