Paulsboro Toxic Train Wreck – 6 Months Later and Here They Go Again
Monitoring Data Show Groundwater Contaminated by Spill
DEP Rates Town’s Wells “Highly Susceptible” To Chemical Contamination
Actual Health Risks Unclear Due to Poor News Reporting
Its been six months since the Toxic Train Wreck in Paulsboro NJ spilled 25,000 gallons of vinyl chloride that forced evacuation of the town and sent 100 or more exposed people to the hospital.
One major problem in leading up to the disaster was lax regulatory oversight of chemical safety.
Another major problem in the response to the disaster was very poor communication of data and risks to the public by government officials, the railroad, and the newspapers.
This set of failures ranged from lack of complete disclosure of the health effects of the chemicals, incomplete reporting of the actual monitoring data, failure to communicate risks, and failure to report on regulatory requirements and government’s responsibilities.
Inaccurate, partial, misleading and flat out false information was given to the public.
Lawsuits allege that information intentionally was withheld from emergency responders and the public in order to downplay health and safety risks.
So, one would assume that lessons would be learned – at least by the press – and mistakes would be corrected, particularly in: 1) holding responsible government regulatory agencies accountable, 2) in skeptically scrutinizing data and statements by polluters about public health risks, and 3) in considering data and safety claims in light of actual regulatory standards and independent science.
Well, sadly, it looks like nothing has changed.
Today, news reports indicate that ongoing monitoring results show groundwater contamination, see : Six months after Paulsboro train derailment, vinyl chloride testing continues.
The Railroad – the responsible polluter with an incentive to misrepresent risks – is the only source in the story.
Vague statements by the railroad, the absence of government officials, and the news coverage virtually repeat the same mistakes made in reporting the original disaster.
Lets look at a few big problems with todays new report linked above to illustrate the problem.
1. The story reports that drinking water in Paulsboro “is stored in towers”. That makes it sound like the water is completely safe and not impacted by the spill.
But what is the source of the drinking water that is pumped into those towers?
According to DEP Reports, groundwater is the source.
Paulsboro system has 4 wells, all rated “highly susceptible” to volatile organic compounds (VOC) in DEP “Source Water Assessment Report” (vinyl chloride that has been detected in groundwater is a VOC).
2. The story reports that “ground water has tested positive for vinyl chloride” and that:
“Since February 2013, several test wells have registered very low and generally declining levels of vinyl chloride in groundwater,” said Conrail spokesman Mike Hotra. “Regular testing of the public water supply system has confirmed that the drinking water in the area has not been affected by the derailment.”
There is no government or independent scientific expert to confirm the Conrail statement or interpret the actual data.
The actual data is not provided – what levels were detected?
There is no trend data reported – how do we know that levels are declining? Are we to take Conrail’s statements at face value, with no backup data to support them?
But most importantly, there is no reporting of what the drinking water standard is and how the detected levels compare to the applicable DEP drinking water and groundwater standards (which is 2 parts per billion (ppb) for vinyl chloride in drinking water and even lower – 0.08 ppb for groundwater).
There is no discussion at all of where the sampling was done and whether the elevated levels were detected in the groundwater source, or the raw source water (in the storage tank) , or the drinking water as it comes out of your tap.
Whay are DEP and DEP regulations again invisible? That was a major flaw in the original disaster.
3. The story makes no mention of DEP or DEP regulations and whether DEP mandated this ongoing monitoring as part of the spill response and cleanup.
Is the data reported to the DEP site remediation program or the DEP drinking water program? That is very important in how the data are used.
Instead, the story makes it sound like Conrail is conducting the sampling out of the goodness of the hearts, driven by scientific curiosity and a concern for public health and the public interest.
4. The story reports that data will be collected and reported to DEP “until no longer necessary”.
What the hell does that mean?
I suspect it means that until detected levels are below regulatory levels of concern set by the DEP and the DEP allows monitoring to end.
Conclusion:
None of this is helpful to readers or the general public, whose main concern is whether their water is safe.
All of the above – especially given the prior regulatory and risk communication failures – is inexcusable and lazy reporting.
They have been planning on poisoning the aquifer for years…
(Numbers after quotes or references are footnote numbers, no superscript in these notes, source of info is verified at end of document.)
I recently released an opinionated production titled ‘Toxic Tort’1, via my YouTube site titled GlouCo411, many enjoyed this production while a few asked for more information. A 7 minute video production allows limited space to fully dig into the complete details of the situation. So I submit this supporting information for your review.
This project began in January of 2010. As a candidate for County Freeholder I had some questions for the Freeholder Board.2 I questioned Director Sweeney regarding many issues in this county in May 2010.
We discussed $126,000 from NJDEP; I asked if it was to build a Pug Mill3 on the Port site for dredge handling. He said it was for the county to purchase things like Haz-Mat equipment as per The Environmental Health Act (EHA/CEHA).4 When the 11/30/12 train accident happened; our Haz-Mat services were not prepared. What was done with this money? Was the CEHA violated by not preparing our Haz-Mat Services? Why would the Law order monies set aside for a specific purpose but not inquire why the money doesn’t appear to have been used for the purposes prescribed?
I questioned about dredge spoils in Gloucester County. Sweeney assured me that the county was opposed to dredge spoils “Absolutely, from day 1”.2 Later he admitted the Port project site would be handling 10 million cubic yards of wet dredge, as asserted in TOXIC TORT. He felt the need to explain this conflict further. His explanation only assured me that he is unaware of what he was actually allowing in this county. He is unaware that the bottom of that river is churned and intermingled daily. As a ship passes over the bottom of our river, sometimes with just a few feet of clearance, it stirs the bottom just as a heavy aircraft stirs the air below it. As our river’s traffic moves daily it spreads the deposits on the bottom the entire length of our river and possibly into the Delaware Bay until water depth becomes greater and less affect is felt directly on the bottom. The dredge is either clean or it is dirty, there is no in between.5 If all the dredge in the river was clean and safe why did they bring the Governor here to talk about how dangerous it is to handle dredge?6 7 A copy of the County Ordinance barring dredge dumping can be found on my web server for reference.9
I also discussed the cash balance based on the 2009 budget audit. I also asked about the GCIA, Gloucester County and BP Oil meeting in Towson, MD, this is where the repurposing of the current Port site was negotiated. Then the issue of Eminent Domain actions was discussed regarding the Port site. These issues may require further discussion in future projects or has been discussed in prior projects.
Lastly, I raised the question of when the Freeholder Board knew that the Kiddie Kollege site was a known contaminated site. He would accept my date of 2004, if it were accurate. Well it was not accurate. It was 2006 when the local paper broke the story on Kiddie College, so Sweeney asserts that the Freeholders and county entities did not know that site was contaminated until 2006. I provide proof that Director Sweeney knew in 2000 that site was contaminated.8 Director Sweeney himself spent over $50,000 to be told of all of the brownsfields (toxic/dirty/underutilized sites) in Gloucester County. The PMK Group of Marlton, NJ provided him with a 51 page report that included Kiddie Kollege in Franklin Township as a Known Contaminated Site.
Now, I mentioned the repurposing of brownsfields in Gloucester County.10 I also mentioned programs that use taxpayer money to subsidize the cleanup expenses for multi-million dollar polluters.11 Environmental Opportunity Zones were also mentioned12, including the perks of up to a 90% property tax break to prevent abandonment of these sites.
Feel free to refute me…
FOOTNOTES
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZyfqZ8LpNk (TOXIC TORT brought to you by Gloucester County), http://www.youtube.com, posted February 21, 2013 2:37 PM by GlouCo411
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFFK8RRwvjQ&list=UU7_WTkXtMWF6J8rc5YLVx-w&index=10 (5-5-2010 GC Freeholder Meeting Part 10 of 10), http://www.youtube.com, posted May 6, 2010 by SavickySchubert
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pug_mill, Definition, Pug Mill, retrieved March 3, 2013
4 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforcement/CEHAstatute.pdf, and the states info site for CEHA, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforcement/ceha.html, retrieved March 3, 2013. Not sure if this is what he referenced. No Environmental Health Act for NJ was found.
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy0hgG2pkUs&list=PL98BD4B29F6B78A95, NASA vortices tests showing how wakes disrupt the areas they travel through.
6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp2T4Wb97KM (3-1-2010 Chris Christie Delaware River Deepening Event Pt 1/2), http://www.youtube.com, posted March 1, 2010 by PBoroDeservesBetter
7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6X9-w_bn5Q (3-1-2010 Chris Christie Delaware River Deepening Event Pt 2/2), http://www.youtube.com, posted March 1, 2010 by PBoroDeservesBetter
8 http://68.46.107.240/PMK.pdf, The PMK Group Report, submitted by The PMK Group on July 13, 2000 directly to State Senator & Freeholder Director Stephen Sweeney.
9 http://68.46.107.240/GCDredge.pdf, the Gloucester County Ordinance barring Dredge dumping.
10 http://68.46.107.240/BRCSRA.pdf, the info sheet on the State’s Brownsfield Redevelopment Act.
11 http://68.46.107.240/EOZMuni.pdf, the fill in the blank version of the States EOZ Law.
12 http://68.46.107.240/EOZ1.pdf, the EOZ Application.