WolfeNotes.com

EC Electroplating has poisoned groundwater, residential basements, and the Passaic River with chromium

[Updates below]

Last week, the little known federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) took the “very rare” step of issuing a public health advisory in Garfield, NJ due to extremely high levels of toxic hexavalent chromium (VI) found in basements of homes.

The ATSDR advisory was the subject of a standing room only public meeting on Tuesday night at Garfield’s Roosevelt School #7, which is located less than 300 feet from EC Electroplating, the source of the chromium pollution.

ATSDR found that the high levels found in residential basement samples create an “immediate and significant risk to human health”. The risk level translates into an individual excess cancer risk of  3 in 10 (see Table 5), which is 300,000 times HIGHER than NJ’s legal cancer risk standard of one in a million.

ATSDR was created by the 1980 Superfund law to provide scientific advice to EPA and inform the public about health risk of hazardous chemicals. They do health assessments in 300-400 communities per year across the country. Since their creation in 1980, ATSDR has issued only 27 advisories in the entire country, and none since 1999.

I asked the head of ATSDR’s Division of Health Assessment Bill Cibulas point blank whether he had ever seen cancer risks like Garfield chromium (3 in 10) anywhere in the US – including notorious Superfund sites like Love Canal, NY; Times Beach Missouri; and Libby Montana – and he said “no”.

That makes Garfield perhaps the highest cancer risk site in the US.

The ATSDR “immediate and significant risk to human health” findings validate the concerns I expressed at the May 20 public meeting, when I accused NJ state officials of downplaying the risks, misleading the community, and dragging their feet in responding to an urgent problem.

At tonite’s hearing, when I pressed EPA scientists to quantify what EPA described as a “very harmful” cancer risk is, they indicated that the risk in sampled homes was 2 in 1,000, or 2,000 TIMES higher than the acceptable risk under NJ laws, which is 1 in a million.

The more recent ATSDR findings also validate our prior work on chromium risks. We have been involved since 2005.

This is important, because EPA, to provide an excuse for delay, is claiming that the science on chromium risk is very recent. While the science supporting chromium toxicity and risk assessments is evolving, concerns about migration into basements and homes is not new. Click on and see:

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

Trenton –  New Jersey state officials are deliberately ignoring mounting evidence of serious health threats to populations surrounding scores of contaminated sites, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). State sampling data show that individual cancer risks from continued presence of airborne chromium exposure to chromium may be as high as 1 in 10 at some sites the state has declared to be clean. (link to fulll report)

In fact, in a November 5, 2005 letter to EPA, we released a DEP chemical engineer’s whistleblower report that documented malfeasance by the NJ DEP. One key finding that is directly relevant to Garfield was this:

The 1998 criteria do not protect groundwater and surface water from chromium contamination. The leaching of chromium from soils into groundwater is a natural resource injury in and of itself. But it can also create a public health hazard; groundwater is a vector for the transport of hexavalent chromium and the contamination of additional soils and structures. Leachate evaporation at interfaces results in localized accumulations of highly enriched solid-phase hexavalent chromium on soil, building or other surfaces. The final report of the workgroup ignores the issue altogether; it proposes no soil standard to protect against leaching to groundwater.

Based on that report, we petitioned US EPA to intervene:

Dear Administrator Johnson:

The enclosed Report and formal requests are submitted by Zoe Kelman, an employee of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (NJ PEER) joins Ms. Kelman in making this request for federal intervention in New Jersey.

Enclosed for your review and action please find: REPORT TO THE NJDEP COMMISIONER ON NJDEP’s CHROMIUM CLEANUP CRITERIA” (Kelman, October 2005. hereafter “Report”).

The Report demonstrates that documented releases of hazardous substances are causing direct exposure of thousands of residents in densely populated urban areas. These exposures constitute an unacceptable risk, an imminent and substantial threat to human health and environment, and a public health emergency. The Report finds that:

1) NJDEP conducted sampling that shows actual individual cancer risks as high as one in ten (1×10(-1)) at sites that have been certified by NJDEP as clean pursuant to State remedial laws;

More recently, on April 22, 2009, we disclosed a DEP risk assessment:

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

Washington, DC – A new risk assessment concludes that even a miniscule amount of chromium in the soil is associated with carcinogenicity, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Current New Jersey standards are more than 200 times laxer than these new findings indicate are needed to protect public health.

The “Risk Assessment for Hexavalent Chromium” performed for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) was finalized on April 8, 2009. Its key conclusion is:

“Based on exposure assumptions for the oral exposure pathway in the NJDEP Soil Remediation Standards, this potency factor corresponds to a soil remediation criterion for Cr+6 of 1 ppm.” (link to full report)

Since then, in May 2009 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Jersey City based Interfaith Community Organization (ICO) petitioned the NJ DEP to adopt chromium cleanup standards based on their own science. DEP denied this petition and still has failed to act to adopt protective cleanup standards.

But let’s get back to current developments in Garfield.

The NJ Department of Health and Senior Services will release a cancer incidence report in November. In December 2009, DHSS found elevated cancer risks in Pompton Lakes. 

EPA map of chromium area of concern – blue is Passaic River.

EPA plans to list the site on the Superfund “National Priorities List” (NPL), based on the ATSDR health advisory (see excellent recent Bergen Record coverage here, and here and here).

EPA has mapped the contaminated groundwater plume. About 700 homes are in the area of concern. EPA issued a survey and about 490 property owners responded. Of those responding, EPA inspected and sampled about 255 of these homes, and found unacceptably high levels 13-16 homes. We assume that additional problems will be found as more homes are sampled.

I don’t want to repeat the Bergen Record’s coverage, but do want to make a few points that are not gettting adequate attention:

1. The history of the site illustrates another DEP disgrace.

DEP discovered a large spill at EC Electroplating back in 1983.  DEP relied on the polluter, EC Electroplating to voluntarily clean up the site and protect the adjacent densely developed residential community.

That didn’t happen, yet DEP failed to enforce cleanup laws, conduct a cleanup themselves, or warn residents of risks so that they could protect themselves.

DEP requested that EPA take over the site in 2002. For 8 years, very little was done by US EPA.

EPA still has not taken enforcement action or even initiated the first step of cost recovery action against the polluter (RP) EC Electroplating.

2. There are widespread chromium problems in scores of NJ communities that are not getting the proper attention by DEP or EPA.

3. DEP continues to fail to move forward with adopting protective soil and groundwater cleanup standards for chromium, based on the most recent science.

4. Homeowners may be eligible to file Spill Fund claims to DEP for reimbursement of property values that have been reduced by the discharge of the hazardous substance chromium.

Here are DEP’s Spill Fund claim regulations which define eligible recoverable damage as (among many others):

“Damages” means all cleanup and removal costs and all direct and indirect damages actually incurred, no matter by whom sustained, arising in connection with a discharge of a hazardous substance, or in connection with a threatened discharge, which costs and damages include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The cost of restoring, repairing or replacing any real or personal property damaged or destroyed by a discharge, any income lost from the time such property is damaged to the time such property is restored, repaired or replaced, and any reduction in value of such property caused by such discharge in comparison with its value absent the discharge; [2-7 omitted]

[clarification –  at least 16 homes are so contaminated that they meet this standard (as ATSDR Report found):

 5. The Garfield community needs to organize and demand immediate sampling and cleanups of all potentially impacted homes.

Community leaders should seek out well organized groups in nearby Pompton Lakes and Jersey City. ([oops! and Edison Wetlands Assc.- hit links for contact info)

6. EPA, ATSDR, and/or NJ DHSSS should conduct (and pay for) medical assessments, bio-monitoring and health tracking of residents in homes found to have high levels of contamiantion in order to establish a baseline, guage exposures, and monitor potential health effects of chromium exposure.

Here are photos of the passion and concerns expressed by residents at Tuesday’s meeting in Garfield.

[Update #2: 3/8/11 – EPA proposes to add Garfield to Superfund NPL – see EPA press release . Click this link for EPA  Federal Register Notice – the site is being proposed based on ATSDR Health Advisory criteria, a rare event.]

[Update #1 – 10/9/10: Bergen Record editorial traces the ugly history and asks “what took so long”. Stop the kid gloves and hold DEP accountable. Read editorial: Garfield’s chromium problem  – end updates]

Roosevelt School less than 300 feet from pollution source, EC Elctroplating (just to left of yellow facade)

This homeowner wanted to know EPA sampling results ad where high levels were found. She was uanble to sell he mother’s home.

concerned Mom spoke out

ths woman counted off multiple cancers in her family

this woman’s home was sampled but she was not given results by EPA – several people complained that EPA had not shared data.

The Grim Reaper is apt – this home is located across the street from EC Electroplating (in background) and on top of the groundwater plume hot spot. Wonder what the levels were in this basement?

The Eye of Category 5 Hurrricane Christie/Martin Passing Over Trenton

[Updates below]

After pounding Trenton for months with record breaking sustained 175 mile per hour winds, destroying several major programs, and killing the morale of over 3,000 DEP workers, the Christie/Martin anti-regulatory winds have gone slack over Trenton.

As the eye of the storm passes over Trenton, we thought we’d take this opportunity to inventory the current damage and outline the path of destruction to follow (done in summary fashion – please hit the links for the full discussion and source documents, or use the word search function on the top righthand corner of this page to access my prior posts on that topic). We invite and welcome additional reports from readers out there – and please provide documentation.

I)  Damage Assessment Thus Far

1. New regulations virtually stalled.

To give readers a sense of the radical nature of the Christie/Martin assault and illustrate just how dead in the water DEP is, we gathered data on historic DEP rulemaking activity:

             Year                                  Rules Proposed      Rules Adopted

• 2004                                                NA                              8
• 2005                                                NA                              8
• 2006                                                NA                            11
• 2007                                                22                              11
• 2008                                               18                              24
• 2009                                               21                                 9
• 2010                                                *4                               *2

(*The performance is even worse than the numbers indicate.  The 4 Christie rules proposed were controversial and/or did not advance envrionmental protection: i.e. bear hunt; fishing promotion; further relax site remediation oversight and enforcement, and subsidize homeowners for dam restoration costs. The 2 rule adoption were rules proposed by the Corzine Administration: i.e sulfur in fuels and coastal wind).

 2. Executive Order #1 Regulatory moratorium and EO 2 cost-benefit review killed 4 proposed rules – ( i.e. drinking water standard for perchlorate; global warming emissions monitoring; public access to the coastal zone; and wetlands. The wetlands kill was a good thing.)

3. Commissioner Martin issued Administrative Order 2010-3 which delayed  implementation and froze enforcement of the Water Quality Management Planning rules for 1 year. We don’t have a full asssessment of all the damage caused by the move, but we assume it was significant, and scores of bad projects in environmentally senstive areas were approved.

4. The DEP testified in support of three major pieces of legislation that would significantly weaken environmental protections: (i.e. prohibition on guidance; rollback to minimum federal standards with legislative rulemaking; and strip the DEP Commissioner of final decisionmaking power in contested cases).

5. On October 4, 2010, DEP proposed new rules that would gut the mandatory cleanup schedules and enforcement fines adopted by the Corzine administration just last December. Those Corzine rules were necessary to hold private cleanup contractors accountable and prevent abuse in the new privatized Licensed Site Professionals cleanup program.

6. Commissioner Martin issued a clouded vision statement, a new office of economic analysis, and sham priorities. Martin’s prime imperative  is to elevate promotion of economic development and consideration of industry compliance costs over protection of public health and the environment.

7. Secret, off the record, industry dominated, by invitation only “stakeholder meetings” are ongoing to further dismantle the Department and its regulatory programs. The secrecy has gotten so bad that DEP’s Orwellian website posting doesn’t even disclose the names of those “invited”.

II)  UpComing Path of Destruction

1. The 180 day review of 17 existing DEP rules created by the Red Tape Review Report expires on October 19, 2010. We expect extreme damage to occur in sensitive low lying program areas, including:

•  Water Quality Management rules which prohibit sewer line extensions into environmentally sensitive areas such as forests, stream buffers, and endangered species habitat;
• Rules to protect the New Jersey Highlands, a region of 800,000 acres that provides water supply to over 5 million state residents, from degradation due to over-development;
• Stream buffers protections and flood hazard reduction regulations;
• Strict oversight of toxic site clean-ups managed by private consultants, under a new privatized site remediation plan enacted under Gov. Corzine;
• Coastal zone management protections, including public access rules;
• Air pollution control to allow wider variances for exceeding permit limits;
• Relaxing rules under the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act to prevent a repeat of the disaster at a Dow Chemical plant in Bhopal, India, where 7,000 people died from poison fumes. The report cites compliance costs to industry and questions the need for any rules beyond a federal minimum; and
• enforcement “flexibility”, waivers, exemptions, grandfathering, delegation of programs and assorted loopholes.

2. The 6 month stay requested by Commisioner Martin in the legal challenge by the Farm Bureau of the Highlands Septic Density Standard expired on or about September 9. Commissioner Martin promised the Court a “fresh look” at that standard. So, we expect a DEP surrender in the form of settlement agreement and regulatory rollback of that core Highlands protection to be announced shortly.

3. We expect more massive weakening of the toxic site cleanup program, as 5 “industry committee” meetings are underway.

4. Several really bad recommendations of the Chrisite DEP Transition Team have already been implemented via guidance quietly in the absence of formal rulemaking or any public notice. These include:

• scale back or eliminate selected strategies that contribute the least to environmental improvement.
• Reexamine regulations to ensure they are properly focused on specific, well defined goals, and minimize or eliminate peripheral requirements. An example of this is the waterfront Public Access rule adopted by DEP in 2007 without direction from the Legislature, which completely changed the existing waterfront public access framework and imposed onerous new fees without standards for how the fee would be applied or calculated.
• Eliminate the Office of Policy, Planning and Science and allocate policy and planning responsibilities to the appropriate regulatory programs
• Establish an advisory panel of external experts to advise DEP on matters of scientific and technological innovation.
• Reinstate the Alternative Dispute Resolution program under the Counselor to the Commissioner which had helped expedite settlements, thus reducing the number of disputes referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as contested cases.
• Establish an Office of Economic Analysis at the Department of State or the Office of the Governor as a shared service for all State agencies and tasked to provide advice directly to commissioners regarding economic drivers including the projected economic effect of new regulations. This office should also assist in risk assessment analysis for when agencies are setting regulatory policy.
• For every rule proposal, require a comprehensive discussion and peer review of the science the DEP considered in support of each element of the proposal, and for every rule adoption, the science relied upon by those commenting to support different policy choices, and any agreement, disagreement and uncertainty regarding the science.
• Require the Office of Economic Analysis to evaluate the economic and financial impacts of proposed rules or other major regulatory decisions, including the potentially adverse impacts associated with taking no action
• Rquire the Office of Economic Analysis to evaluate the analyses of economic impacts received from interested parties during the public comment period.
• Convene one or more informal meetings with stakeholders to discuss rulemaking objectives and accept input on policies, and whenever appropriate, distribute draft rule text to stakeholders for comment prior to the preparation of rule proposals.
• The DEP must fundamentally overhaul the way development projects are regulated and streamline the permitting process. The State must create an office that provides a single point of entry with an accountable person to shepherd companies pursuing complex projects through the regulatory process. The DEP must immediately suspend the implementation of requirements that have not been properly adopted through rulemaking, and immediately reconsider existing regulations that impose requirements that are not grounded in sound science, are impractical to satisfy, and conflict with other State environmental and land use policies.
• Create a business/project ombudsman in the Office of the Governor to create a single point of entry for complex projects.
• Provide that jurisdictional determinations (determinations as to whether or not a permit is necessary) may be requested and provided on-line.
• Delegate land use permitting to the Meadowlands, Highlands, and Pinelands Commissions for the areas within their jurisdiction.
• Eliminate duplicative reviews by accepting the approvals conducted under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) from other governmental jurisdictions when appropriate; for example, stormwater management plans need not be subject to multiple reviews.
• Delegate land use permitting at brownfields sites to the Site Remediation Program
• Immediately suspend the inappropriate use of the Landscape Project mapping of purported Threatened and Endangered species habitat.
• Immediately rescind Administrative Orders requiring the application of 300-foot buffers from certain streams or rivers where existing rules require a 150-foot buffer.
• Immediately suspend the practice of conditioning permits on the imposition of conservation easements on portions of property not subject to the pending application.
• Revise existing rules to allow for the greater use of waivers and exceptions to specific requirements when project applicants demonstrate that alternatives will yield the equivalent or better environmental results. Immediately direct, as a matter of policy, that hardship waivers allowed under existing rules be granted when justified.
• Reexamine buffer requirements in urban/disturbed areas and Planning Areas 1 and 2 designated for growth under the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter referred to as the State Plan) as applied to wetlands, C-1 waters and potential Threatened and Endangered species habitat under Flood Hazard, Stormwater, and Wetlands rules.
• Revise the Water Quality Management Planning rules (WQMP); update and improve sewer service areas through regional planning and coordinate with the State Plan.
• Utilize the previously recommended business ombudsman to overcome existing regulatory hurdles without undermining environmental protections.
• With respect to the State’s efforts to seek compensation for damages to natural resources (NRD), we recommend that NRD efforts fall under the jurisdiction of the Site Remediation Program, and that rules be adopted to provide transparency, certainty and consistency in the assessment of those damages.
• Revise the Interim Rule to limit its scope to SRRA required elements. For example, the provisions of the interim rule applying new requirements for vapor intrusion were not mandated by SRRA and should be subject to fuller pubic review and comment before adoption. Vapor intrusion occurs when contaminants in groundwater or soil emit vapors that enter structures and could have a potential impact on human health.
• Apply the DEP’s efforts toward compliance assistance to all site remediation professionals and responsible parties.
• Review and revise current requirements pertaining to vapor intrusion within building structures, including how and when to test, notification, and/or mitigate
• Transfer all responsibility for NRD assessment restoration and recovery to Site Remediation.
• Adopt regulations regarding NRD assessment, restoration and recovery that are transparent, stable and predictable.
• There needs to be a recognition that agriculture, like every other business in New Jersey, has been overregulated and burdened by DEP rules. Farmers should be recognized as stewards to the land and treated as partners in land preservation not potential polluters.
• Revenue generation should be maximized through the use of concessions, camping and park rentals and forest management.
• There needs to be a full examination of DEP’s existing self-audit policy utilized by the regulated community, to ensure it does not create disincentives for voluntary disclosure and provides adequate and appropriate time to correct violations
• There needs to be a full examination of DEP’s administrative penalty regulations to ensure they are fair and consistent
• There needs to be a full examination of the implementation of the “Grace Period” regulations to ensure that they follow the legislative intent of the Grace Period statute. The Grace Period statute was aimed at making a distinction between minor and non-minor violations and providing an appropriate time to correct those violations. However, the DEP has inappropriately implemented the regulations by issuing automatic violations with limited time to respond.
• Simplification of the permitting process: Title V Permits which are permits for certain large facilities, administered by the DEP as required under the federal Clean Air Act, have become extremely cumbersome and voluminous in New Jersey. Steps should be taken to reduce the complexity of these permits.
• Chromium Standard: Re-evaluate the current chromium standard, taking into consideration natural baseline levels and peer reviewed scientific data.
• Prevailing wage at brownfield sites: In order for the State to attract investment and compete for economic development with bordering states, New Jersey must eliminate the prevailing wage requirement under State reimbursement programs for brownfield sites.

5. A number of major priority initiatives have fallen off the end of the earth, such as:  implementation of the global warming response act, update of the water supply master plan,  sustainable land use/smart growth, protection of threatened/endangered species habitat, reducing nutrient water pollution, strengthening chemical plant safety, upgrading drinking water standards,  reducing urban air toxics, and promoting environmental justice.

6. New but ill defined threats are posed by a new Science Advisory Board and a recent Request For Proposals to privatize Land Use permit reviews.

III)  Summary and Prospects

Perhaps the most surprising and disgusting aspect of this massive destruction is that it was predicted (see this October 6, 2009 pre-election post), and thus avoidable. But instead of prevention and defense, there has been a total collapse of all oversight and counterveilling powers.

1. The environmental community is disorganized and AWOL (with the sole exception of Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club).

Worse, despite this unprecedented and destructive assault, the NJ Environmental Federation continues to provide cover and defense of Christie, and seems incapable of a very prominent public mea culpa for endorsing Christie.

2. The Democrats are either leading the charge backing the rollbacks, or keeping their powder dry in holding the Christie Administration accountable for this horrific record.

3. The press is sleeping and/or incapable. Partially as a result of #1 and #2, the media – with the exceptions of Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight, Jim Oneill at the Bergen Recod, and Ed Rodgers at NJN – has taken a powder.

We expect further devastation as the Christie/Martin storm passes over a completely unprotected and vulnerable Trenton.

[Update:  2 – 10/13/10 signs that people are waking up? Today’s Philadeplphia Inquirer story:  Environmental groups worry about Christie agency decisions – But Dave Pringle of NJEF continues to cover for Christie: 

Bill Wolfe with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility is also concerned. “DEP’s mission, established by law, is to protect the environment and public health, not grow the economy,” he said. “Martin’s views are at odds with law, almost 40 years of practice, and the reality of environmental policy, where compliance burdens often cost industry real money. ‘Greater flexibility’ is merely a code for providing ‘regulatory relief.‘ ”

David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation was more reserved in his assessment of the plan. “It’s a healthy process for an agency to look at how they’re doing things and modernize to be more effective,” he said.

Here is the process DEP Commissioner Martin directed – that Pringle finds “healthy“:

Our agency does not have the luxury of transforming over a 3 to 4 year time frame. It is incumbent upon all managers to begin to identify, today, the changes that can occur immediately. We must identify what administrative and non-mission critical tasks we can stop doing without a protracted internal or external stakeholder process. (see page 3 of otherwise empty “Transformation Plan“) END

Protestors walk by War Memorial on way to State House rally against Christie education cuts (May 22, 2010)

Yup – add Trenton’s War Memorial to Governor Christie’s Privatization Initiative.

Yesterday’s Morris Daily Record reported:

Christie seeking private vendors to run Trenton War Memorial

Looks like public schools, NJN TV, and DEP land use permits aren’t enough.

What’s next? Make your predictions now before its too late!

Who Owns Your Tap and Toilet Water? Will You have Clean and Plentiful Water Tomorrow?

The Clean Water Council will hold it annual public hearing on Tuesday October 12. This year’s hearing is sure to provoke controversy.

Expanded privatization of NJ’s drinking water systems, wastewater treatment (sewers), and stormwater management infrastructure is now on the table.

Do you think that more corporate profits and control over your public water and sewer systems is the way to go? Governor Christie and DEP Commisisoner Bob Martin sure seem to.

In addition to a white paper on “infrastructure asset management” – surprise, surprise! -prominent on the Council’s issues agenda to be considered is:

What role might privatization or public-private contracts perform to improve water infrastructure asset management?

As Gomer Pile, USMC,  used to say: SHAZAAAM!

Current DEP Commissioner Bob Martin made a career out of privatizing public water supply systems.

Given Governor Christie’s ideological support for privatization – including Christie’s Privatization Task Force created under Exectutive Order # 17 – word has it that Martin’s privatization experience was his main “qualification” for the DEP job.

Governor Christie also issued Executive Order #15 which sought to eliminate certain public authorities.

In a September 15 post, we warned that, among other things, in response to Christie’s Executive Order 15, Commissioner Martin had submitted recommendations to the Governor to consolidate the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission with the NJ Water Supply Authority, as well as consolidate the Clean Water Council and Water Supply Advisory Council.

Shockingly, Martin’s consolidation recommendations were not supported by any facts or analysis.

Commissioner Martin’s consolidation recommendations are sure to prove controversial. Setting up a showdown, the Council’s White Paper recommendations to Commissioner Martin directly contradict Martin’s own consolidation recommendations to the Governor:

Importantly, a “one size fits all” approach to infrastructure management and accounting is inappropriate due to the wide variety of ownership types and sizes of systems. Asset management techniques must be suited to each infrastructure type, management structure, whether the system is a bulk or retail service, system size, infrastructure age, etc. While there are emerging general approaches5 that have broad applicability, the specifics of asset management will vary among and even within systems.

As water and sewer line breaks, boil water emergencies, and drought warnings become almost a daily occurence, the Council’s hearing comes at a critical juncture.

NJ’s safe drinking and clean water infrastructure deficits are approaching crisis conditions. Back in 2005, I testified to the Council about infrastructure deficits:

Need for Public Investment – Financing environmental infrastructure deficits

The first priority of the Clean Water Council should be a strong recommendation to the next Administration to get the environmental infrastructure deficit issue on the political and policy radar screens. The Council should focus on the fact that environmental nfrastructure deficits are a serious and long ignored problem that threaten NJ’s economic future, quality of life, public health, and ecological integrity. The Council needs to emphasize that water resource and environmental infrastructure expenditures are investments. The Council should recommend the absolute need to establish creative new funding sources to finance this critical deficit.

More recently, on September 19, we wrote about NJ $7.9 billion drinking water infrastructure deficit.

But that drinking water infrastructure deficit is dwarfed by overall clean water and stormwater management needs, which exceed $ 20 billion.

Importantly, those costs do not include necessary investments in new treatment technologies to respond to emergent chemical threats (see recent DEP petition for rulemaking) or to adapt to global warming (see “Adapt or Die“).

Those “hard infrastructure” cost assessments also don’t include the most cost effective and environmentally sustainable approach: preservation of “Natural capital” and green infrastructure. 

Clearly, Governor Christie’s head in the sand “anti-tax” and privatization approach will not solve these huge structural problems. Nor will Martin’s poorly thought out consolidation.

A massive environmental infrastructure investment package is required to protect NJ’s ecological, public health, and economic/jobs future.

We urge you to register to testify and turn out for the Council’s October 12 hearing . We will keep you posted on the outcome.

[with Update below]

I got criticism from friends whose opinions I trust on yesterday’s post about the Christie land use privatization proposal, claiming that I unfairly quoted Dave Pringle out of context.

So I need to do a better job explaining what is going on and why I used only the portion of Pringle’s quote that said “It’s good the DEP would still have final say on permits.”

Pringle opposed the privatization plan, but agreed with DEP on this key point about “final say”.

First off, that lie (about DEP final say) was thrown back in our face by DEP to rebut every criticism we made of the privatization of the toxic site remediation program: “Don’t worry, private consultants can’t undermine environmental protections and act in their client’s economic interests because all final cleanup decisions will be made by DEP”. [Note: As Pringle has acused me of “revisionism” as well, note that DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson and Assistant Commissioner Kropp testified to this effect. Here is a relevant excerpt of Jackson’s April 15, 2008 testimony:

“Under this plan, cases will be addressed more rapidly and properties will be developed to desired uses. We will be cleaning up sites and stimulating economic vitality. We will not compromise on our standards or protection of the environment and public health. Nor will we delegate the inherently governmental functions of site remediation to private entities. The Department will maintain the functions associated with the issuance all NFA’s, review all cases with receptor and off-site contaminant migration impacts, audit cases based on potential risks and expand our oversight for the “worst” cases and for those with recalcitrant responsible parties. … 

But as a priority, the selection of remedies for certain categories of cases needs to be placed back into the hands of the Department. Specifically, we believe the Department should have the ability to select remedies for residential end uses, especially single-family homes on contaminated sites and residential developments on landfills. Additionally, remedy selection for educational and childcare facilities should be subject to greater Department input.” [end quote]

The Senate statement on the bill reflects that DEP oversight lie, despite the fact that the bill surrendered final cleanup decision authority to private consultants via the Response Action Outcome (RAO) certification and rejected the critical new DEP remedy selection power):

The bill would require the department to inspect all documents submitted by a licensed site remediation professional concerning a remediation.  The department may provide for additional review of a document if the professional did not comply with professional standards, there are deficiencies, errors or omissions that result in the inability to determine if the remediation will be protective of public health, safety and the environment, or if the remediation is not protective of public health, safety or the environment.  Further, the bill provides for mandatory DEP review of a submission based upon certain criteria, or for a discretionary review. At a minimum, the department is required to perform additional review of at least 10 percent of the documents submitted annually. The bill requires the board to audit the conduct and submissions of at least 10 percent of all licensed site remediation professionals annually. Finally, the bill authorizes the department to invalidate a response action outcome under certain circumstances

I think the Pringle practice I am criticizing is called surrendering the major premise – the point is you never legitimize lies or concede the lynchpin of your opponent’s argument.

The right position on an issue, supported by the wrong reasons, is harmful and needs to be called out.

Examples:

“It is good that President Johnson’s War in Vietnam is preventing southeastern asian countries from falling to Communism like dominoes, but I oppose the war because...

“It is good that President Bush’s War in Iraq is stoppping the terrorists from killing US citizens at home, but I oppose the war because …

“It is good that the Constitution gives Congress the final say in regulating abortion, but I support a woman’s right to choose because …

“It is good that the Constitution treats slaves like property, but I oppose slavery because …

“It is good that the Biblical injunction “spare the rod, spoil the child” is supported by science, but I oppose corporal punishment because …

“It is good that the Constitution protects a property owner’s right to decide who eats at his restaurant or sleeps at his hotel, but I oppose Jim Crow segregation because ...

“It is true that studies show that women are inherently weaker than men in math and science, but I support women in science because …

“It is true that women and gays in the military would undermine troop morale and discipline, but I oppose “Don’t ask, don’t tell”  because …

“It is good that the Constitution’s First Amendment protects the unfettered free speach right of corporations to spend unlimited money on elections, but I support campaign finance laws because …

“It is good that free markets promote democracy, freedom, and maximize efficiency and equity, but I support regulation because …

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people: (an Obama quote in statement supportng FISA bill), but I oppose domestic spying because … . .

Get my point?

[Update: This is not just some theoretical nit picking exercise – the threat is real. On June 19, I wrote:

Some now are advocating expanding the LSP privatization model to DEP land use programs (wetlands, flood hazard, and coastal zone permits). Those very programs are now undergoing rollback reviews as a result of the Red Tape Review Report, so there is a serious risk that Christie deregulation and privatization policies could merge and radically dismantle these critical natural resource protection programs. 

And proponents of expanding the LSP model are not just right wing ideologues, but also include Bergen County Democratic Senator Bob Gordon, and many other places in the Democratic party.

On May 15, I reported on a Senate Environment Committee hearing:

2) Expand LSP Privatization Model for DEP Land Use Programs?

Senator Gordon (D-Bergen) really surprised me by suggesting that the controversial toxic site cleanup Licensed Site Professional (LSP) privatization model be expanded into DEP land use permitting programs.

That is a really bad idea that actually goes beyond the radical assault of the Christie Transition Report.

The Senator’s constituents and Trenton ENGO lobbyists need to tell him to drop that foolishness now.