Old Money Grace Becomes Just Another Wealthy Wasteland Disgrace
We were in the Adirondacks this summer on our east coast visit, so of course stopped in to see Saratoga Springs. We didn’t stop by during our tour last summer.
Some scenes, mostly in or adjacent to graceful Congress Park: (from our current perch in the Sonoran desert, we can almost feel the water!)
Bukowski Worked To Provide “Regulatory Relief” and Dismantle DEP Land Use, Air Quality, and Enforcement
Was Involved In Dirty DEP Enforcement Deal With Trump Golf Courses
[Update: 12/18/21 – A tweeter just advised me that Bukowski recently retired. I have no way to confirm that, as he’s still on DEP website. That’s good news, but does nothing to change this story. Oh, I failed to note that Bukowski was involved in the Christie Administration’s dirty Trump enforcement deal and lied about it (ProPublica story):
In this case, the DEP did assess a fine: Despite five years of violations, just $294,000 — before cutting the amount in half, to $147,000 (plus $2,790 in interest), as part of the settlement. Bukowski asserts that Trump got no special treatment.
The Commissioner was personally involved in the Trump case. That alone is special treatment and Bukowski knows it. Worse, longstanding violations were ignored and DEP’s proposed paltry fine was cut in half. Bukowski lied: (ProPublica):
Clearly unhappy about the situation, Trump got personally involved. In October 2012, he called DEP Commissioner Robert Martin to discuss the matter. What Trump said is unknown, but a letter that Martin sent him afterwards alluded to the discussion:
How does someone spend 8 years of collaboration with the Christie DEP and get caught in a blatant lie on a high profile TRUMP enforcement case, and then get promoted to Assistant Commissioner in a “pro-environment” Democratic administration? Just what does it take to derail a career at DEP? (I know: just leak documents that expose corruption).
As Murphy DEP Assistant Commissioner, Bukowski also attended NJ Audubon’s corrupt Sparta Mountain logging tour. ~~~ end update]
When a new Governor is elected, during the transition process, the DEP management team and about a dozen political appointees are asked to leave and depart by January when the Gov. is sworn in. High level managers that have civil service protections are sent back to the bowels of the bureaucracy and told to stay in their cubicles.
The Christie Administration cleaned house at DEP – perhaps most importantly by abolishing the Office of Climate Change in the Commissioner’s Office – but the Murphy Administration did not.
As a result, there are many holdovers, including what I will call “regulatory hit men” that collaborated with the Christie regime under new Commissioner Bob Martin.
In many ways the Murphy Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is actually worse than the Christie DEP.
We’ve already exposed the fact that the Murphy DEP Commissioner was a corporate lawyer for some of NJ’s biggest corporate polluters, including the Fortress Energy LNG export project.
LaTourette was perhaps the most egregious example of revolving door abuse. His former Director of Legislative Affairs – the controversial Murphy Pinelands nominee now with off shore wind developer Orsted – could be a close second.
The Christie DEP was led by a far less experienced and knowledgeable corporate hack Bob Martin – who was a mere financial consultant and lacked the knowledge to do real damage (compared to LaTourette, who not only is far more knowledgeable, but has been spun successfully by Gov. as a public interest lawyer and a “diverse” and first openly gay DEP Commissioner).
Everyone knew Bob Martin was a corporate consultant and Christie had an anti-regulatory agenda. But, with Murphy, it’s just the opposite: he is spun as a “green leader” and LaTourette as a defender of Erin Brockovich, not the corporate lawyer he was!! LaTourette himself plays these misleading games. So, compared with Bob Martin, LaTourette is not the “lesser of two evils”. He is – as Glen Ford said of Obama – the more effective evil.
We’ve already exposed the fact that the Murphy DEP not only failed to rescind Christie DEP regulatory rollbacks and strengthen current rules, but instead has re-adopted many Christie DEP rollbacks and gone even further and weakened important stormwater rules.
Current DEP Commissioner LaTourette, while previously representing his corporate polluter clients, actually litigated a case that did much damage to the Natural Resource Damage (NRD) program in DEP. see:
That NRD program provides huge leverage over corporate polluters, as the public learned in the Exxon $8 billion case, which was corruptly settled by the Christie Administration for pennies on the dollar.
That NRD program is administered by the Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources, who is now led by a former Christie DEP Hit Man named Ray Bukowski. I strongly doubt that an unqualified yes man – hit man heading that important NRD program and reporting to a former corporate lawyer Commissioner who successfully litigated against the NRD program on behalf of his corporate clients is a coincidence. Strongly – Doubt – It.
So, today, we expose the fact that there are Christie DEP holdovers who not only continue to do damage below the radar, but were actually promoted.
We start with Murphy DEP Assistant Commissioner for Natural and Historic Resources, Ray Bukowski.
Bukowski was a willing collaborator and served as a “regulatory hit man” for the Christie DEP.
(A role his Murphy DEP bio describes as “a Management Improvement Specialist in the Commissioner’s Office.” Orwell lives)
I borrowed the term “hit man” from John Perkins’ superb expose: “Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man”.
Everyone knows what the job of a Mafia “hit man” is.
In a similar vein, Perkins spent his career as an “economic hit man” and uses that experience to expose the role of an “economic hit man” as doing the necessary behind the scenes technical work to serve powerful interests:
Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.
There are people who serve the same “hit man” role within the DEP bureaucracy.
During the Christie Administration, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin – a hit man with zero environmental training or experience or knowledge of DEP regulations – launched a vicious attack on DEP regulations.
In his “DEP Transformation Plan” – really code for a policy of dismantling, deregulation, and privatization – here’s what Martin said about DEP regulations – despite the fact that he had absolutely no knowledge or working experience with them:
Regulatory Reform. External and internal stakeholders have identified the need for true reform of the regulatory process for many years, most notably in the last transition reports. The regulatory process is cumbersome, resource intensive, and time consuming. We cannot respond quickly and efficiently to identified needs for rule changes. No effective measures have ever been taken to address this administrative process. DEP must address internal processes and then act as a pilot for the state in identifying APA reforms. Additionally, our rules are prescriptive, not outcome based, and inflexible. DEP must ensure that our regulations truly protect the environment, are science based and further
Martin flat out lied when he claimed that the goal was “regulatory reform”.
Actually, the policy of the Christie administration – as codified in Gov. Christie’s Executive Order #2, which he issued in the first hour of his first day in Office (EO #1 was a moratorium on regulations, EO# 3 was Red Tape Commission and EO#4 blocked state regulatory mandates on local government) – was an across the board assault and called for a policy of “regulatory relief”, not “regulatory reform”.
EO#2 made the “regulatory relief” policy goal very clear:
For immediate relief from regulatory burdens, State agencies shall
Martin’s “DEP Transformation Plan” was an effort to implement Gov. Christie’s “regulatory relief” policy.
Everyone in DEP knew that. Non-cooperative DEP staffers were overtly threatened by Deputy Commissioner Kropp’s “Burning Platform” presentation. Remarkably, Martin insanely claimed that he had established a “New World Order” at DEP. Martin was such a zealot, he even tried to abolish the D&R Canal Commission, a foolish move – like his Bulls Island clearcut plan – that he was repudiated and humiliated on.
But Martin couldn’t do that by himself. Martin desperately needed collaborators to work as his “regulatory hit men”.
He was reliant on DEP “regulatory hit men” – DEP staff that knew enough to collaborate with his regulatory dismantling.
As the “DEP Transformation Plan” noted:
it is imperative to actively include our staff in the transformation process. DEP staff possesses a wealth of knowledge that can help us identify problems and solutions.
Which is where Mr. Bukowski comes in as a collaborator and “regulatory hit man” (read the Transformation Plan to see his specific “hit man” assignments)
Here’s how Martin’s “Transformation Plan” attacked DEP’s land use regulations:
Land Use Regulation. This program is repeatedly the criticism of a host of external, internal DEP and other State agency stakeholders. It is noted as being unresponsive, cumbersome, antiquated, overreaching and expensive due to fees, engineering costs and project overruns. All concerns point to the number one complaint, which is an impediment to economic growth, not due to preservation of resources but rather due to antiquated administrative/technical processes that include no flexibility. Program regulations are too complex and prescriptive. Some regulations are overreaching and overlapping, resulting in programs that face permitting and enforcement conflicts within DEP itself. This often results in confusion on behalf of the regulated community, as they cannot predict what is expected of them in order to comply with our regulations.
There can be no doubt that this is an all out assault on DEP’s land use regulations.
Well, guess who led that “regulatory relief” effort as a “regulatory hit man”?
Yup, Mr. Bukowski.
Here’s how Martin similarly attacked DEP’s air quality regulations, with the additional federal consistency rollback emphasis from Christie’s Executive Order #2:
Air Quality Regulation. This program is criticized by external, internal DEP and other State agency stakeholders as being more stringent than federal regulations, overreaching, over-regulating and expensive due to fees. Program regulations are too complex and prescriptive. Some regulations are overreaching and overlapping, resulting in programs that face permitting and enforcement conflicts within DEP itself.
There can be no doubt that this is an all out assault on DEP’s air quality regulations.
Well, guess who led that “regulatory relief” effort as a “regulatory hit man”?
Yup, Mr. Bukowski.
Take a look at how Martin attacked and sought to scale back DEP’s enforcement:
Enforcement. Interface/interaction with associated partnering programs. Evaluate priorities geared toward focus on true environmental impacts vs. statutory and federal mandates, penalties and settlement authority, interaction with DOL, and process to use new ADR office going forward.
There can be no doubt that this is an all out assault on DEP’s enforcement program.
Well, guess who led that “regulatory relief” effort as a “regulatory hit man”?
Yup, Mr. Bukowski.
Check out how Martin attacked DEP regulation of “linear development”, critical and controversial projects like pipelines:
Linear Construction projects. SRP is working with DOT, Transit, the Turnpike and multiple utility companies to identify how to provide guidance on these unique projects to regulated entities. Most DEP rules are geared toward developers and regulated companies, rarely considering the impact to fast moving linear construction projects. This existing team could be expanded to evaluate how to provide flexibility, guidance and future rule amendment/legislation to accommodate critical infrastructure projects.
There can be no doubt that this was intended to ease DEP regulations on projects like pipelines.
No need to guess. Bukowski was assigned this hit man job too.
And what was the public cover story for all this deeply unpopular corporate “regulatory relief”?
Something that could baffle the media and allow the NJ Green Mafia to greenwash this “regulatory relief” program?
It was the notorious greenwashing slogan “sustainability”:
Sustainability: A steering committee of approximately 12 internal stakeholders will be formed to identify opportunities to promote the application of sustainability science and to incorporate sustainability goals in best management practices both internally and externally. The committee will work with internal and external stakeholders as appropriate. The committee will utilize already existing SAGE workgroup for internal outreach.
Don’t even ask – Bukowski was on that too.
After all this work to weaken environmental protections – including DEP land use protections of natural resources – it is astonishing that Bukowski was not buried in the Siberian DEP bureaucracy. No he was promoted and is now the Murphy DEP Assistant Commissioner with policy control over Natural Resources.
No wonder corporate lawyer DEP Commissioner LaTourette just abolished DEP’s enforcement program.
No wonder The Highlands Council justified promotion of economic development of 23,000 acres (36 square miles) as “sustainable development”.
As I recently wrote, there is virtually complete continuity between the Christie DEP and the Murphy DEP.
Yet the Green Mafia sycophants cheerlead and the media is AWOL.
Who will tell the people about all this?
DEP Proposal Would Reduce Statewide Carbon Dioxide Emissions a Paltry 2.6% by 2035
Allows DEP To Continue to Rubber Stamp Permits For Gas Pipelines, Power Plants, & LNG Exports
Makes A Mockery Of Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order Purported to Accelerate Emissions Reductions
Why we need a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure, an enforceable cap on total emissions and explicit linkage between the emissions from an individual project to attaining the total statewide emissions reduction goals
The Murphy DEP finally proposed their long awaited “Climate PACT” rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (read the DEP proposal).
I previously provided a critical overview of that proposal and wrote a followup post about how it failed to even consider Gov. Murphy’s recent Executive Order #274 to accelerate the GHG emissions reduction goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act.
So, in assisting folks to participate in the public hearing (2/1/22) and public comment process on the proposal (public comment period ends on 3/6/22), today I want to highlight remarkable and fatal flaws in the proposal.
First, the DEP proposal fails to regulate methane emissions.
Methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (in the short-run, over a 20 year period).
In 2020, Governor Murphy signed into law P.L.2019, c.319 that requires DEP to use a 20-year time horizon and most recent IPCC Assessment Report when calculating global warming potential to measure the global warming impact of greenhouse gases.
Yet here is how DEP (under)estimated the warming potential of methane (top of page 30)
Direct methane emissions released to the atmosphere (without burning) are about 25 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of their warming effect on the atmosphere.
So, the DEP not only failed to regulate methane emissions, they are ignoring a State law mandate and misleading the public about the warming potential of methane.
DEP originally defined methane as a regulated greenhouse gas way back in 2005, but did not regulate methane emissions (see DEP rule adoption, @ p. 66)
New Jersey’s decision to expand its emissions statement rules to require reporting for CO2 and methane resulted in Maine and Connecticut following suit, and other states are actively considering comparable requirements
In 2019, the NJ Global Warming Response Act was amended to address methane: (revealing their cheerleading role, Gov. Murphy’s press release is actually posted on the NJ Conservation Foundation website!)
The Legislature further finds and declares that, while carbon dioxide is the primary and most abundant greenhouse gas, other greenhouse gases known as short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane, create a warming influence on the climate that is many times more potent over a shorter period of time than that of carbon dioxide, and have a dramatic and detrimental effect on air quality, public health, and climate change; and that reducing emissions of these pollutants can have an immediate beneficial impact on climate change and public health.
But DEP defied the legislature’s findings and mandate on how to calculate methane warming potential.
The failure to regulate methane allows DEP to rubber stamp permits for major fossil infrastructure like LNG export plants, gas pipelines, gas power plants, and compressor stations without considering GHG emissions, climate impacts or the emission reduction goals of the Global Warming Response Act or the Governor’s recent Executive Order 274.
According to a petition for rulemaking submitted to DEP by the EMPOWER NJ coalition, there are multiple major proposed natural gas pipelines, compressor stations, power plants and an LNG export project pending DEP permit review. Those projects, according to the petition, would increase current greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%. (see point #64, p. 19-20)
These projects emit both methane (directly and by leaks) and carbon dioxide (by combustion of the methane natural gas fuel).
Because DEP is not regulating methane, the methane emissions from these projects (lifecycle, from the fracking gas well to the point of use) would not be considered or regulated.
The carbon dioxide emissions from these projects, e.g. for gas fueled power plants, would be below DEP’s promoted CO2 emission standards for individual sources, and therefore would be permitted by DEP.
Second, there is no overall cumulative cap on emissions under DEP’s proposal – i.e. the emission standards for an individual project are NOT linked to the Global Warming Response Act reduction goals or the Governor’s Executive Order (50% by 2030).
For context for the DEP’s alleged 2.5 million ton carbon dioxide reduction and failure to regulate methane, consider this just one gas fired power plant project would completely wipe out the DEP’s entire projected 2.5 million ton emission reduction: (Bergen Record, 2/15/19)
A controversial, natural gas-fired power plant proposed for the Meadowlands would emit more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than any existing power plant in New Jersey, according to a review of federal data.
In fact, North Bergen Liberty Generating station’s estimated 2.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions would tie it with the Phillips 66 Bayway Refinery in Linden as the top single greenhouse gas producer in the Garden State.
Third, there is no enforceable linkage between individual project emissions and attainment of Statewide emissions reduction goals.
This is why we need a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure, an enforceable cap on total emissions and explicit linkage between the emissions from an individual project to attaining the total statewide emissions reduction goals.
The DEP proposal fails in all those ways: no moratorium and no cap and no linkage from individual to statewide limit.
The DEP proposal is a weak effort.
It completely contradicts Gov. Murphy’s rhetoric about his commitment to address the climate crisis.
We need far more to address the climate emergency.
But, just don’t expect NJ Spotlight to tell you that. They provide readers with sweeping propaganda.
DWQI Issues Request For Public Comment After Shift To Algae Blooms Was Announced
Hundreds of toxic industrial chemicals in drinking water remain unregulated
Yesterday, literally hours after I posted my critique of their major shift in policy to algae blooms, the DWQI issued a solicitation for public comment:
Dear Interested Party,
The Drinking Water Institute has issued the below call for public input for research on cyanotoxins.
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/pdf/cyanotoxins-call-for-public-input.pdf
Please send any data or information pertinent to cyanotoxins to the Department at DWQI@dep.nj.gov by 5 PM on January 31, 2022.
Additional information, and presentations from the December 8 DWQI meeting can be found at
The solicitation for public comment was made after the decision to shift focus to algae blooms (i.e.cyanotoxins) was already made and publicly announced as a fait accompli.
Just as bad, the DWQI solicitation is extremely narrow in scope, limited to issues regarding the science and data on cyanotoxins, as opposed to whether the DWQI should even investigate cyanotoxins – as opposed to other unregulated chemicals – or whether they are authorized to do so.
To strongly object and block this move, I wrote the following letter to Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith:
Dear Chairman Smith – I am writing to request that you conduct legislative oversight under the NJ Safe Drinking Water Act concerning a recent significant change in policy announced by the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI), as recently reported by NJ Spotlight.
Apparently, the DWQI is shifting focus from their traditional primary focus on anthropogenic chemical contaminants towards the chemical byproducts of harmful algae blooms (i.e. cyanotoxins).
This DWQI shift in focus comes despite the facts that:
1) there is a huge backlog of prior DWQI MCL recommendations to DEP that DEP has ignored and not adopted Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL’s) for, including perchlorate and more than a dozen hazardous contaminants;
2) DEP, DWQI and the USGS have documented hundreds of known unregulated chemical contaminants in NJ drinking water with unknown health effects, including pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting chemicals:
3) Following a 2004 DEP formal solicitation of public comment in the NJ Register, in a 2010 Report, DEP recommended a shift in focus and methodology at the DWQI away from a single chemical risk assessment based MCL development approach towards a “treatment based approach”:
4) the shift in focus raises questions about legislative authorization and legislative intent under the NJ Safe Drinking Water Act;
5) the shift in focus was made unilaterally by the DWQI and announced as a fait accompli in the absence of any public review process or opportunity for public comment;
6) the shift in focus was made in the absence of any comparative risk based framework or other valid science based methodology to justify such a radical shift in policy; and
7) the shift in focus appears to have been made without adequate scientific basis of scientific peer review.
The DWQI has very limited resources. This shift in focus to cyanotoxins will make it impossible to investigate far more serious drinking water risks from unregulated contaminants.
I urge you to conduct legislative oversight and consider legislation to limit the DWQI authority over investigations of the byproducts of natural biological processes, like production of cyanotoxins in source water. Prevention and regulation of eutrophication and harmful algae blooms is more appropriately led by DEP pursuant to clean water laws and various DEP land use and water resource programs.
I also urge you to consider new legislation, if necessary, to mandate that DEP and DWQI adopt the “precautionary principle”; adopt a “treatment based approach”; and otherwise regulate hundreds of unregulated chemicals known to be present in drinking water.
See below my comments to the DWQI in response to their narrow request for public comment, which absurdly was issued AFTER the shift in focus to cyanotoxins was announced.
Respectfully,
Bill Wolfe
Shift To Algae Blooms Shields Big Pharma and Petro-Chemical Polluters From Costly Regulation
Lets DEP Regulators And Corporate Water Companies Off The Hook
DWQI And DEP Ignore Their Own Recommendation To Shift Towards “A Treatment Based Approach”
The DWQI shift in focus to algae blooms suggests a corporate polluters’ strategic preemptive strike on the DWQI to prevent them from developing any more new drinking water standards for hundreds of unregulated chemicals that they KNOW are present in your drinking water, including pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, and hundreds of other toxic chemicals.
In another example of journalistic malpractice, NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle recently reported favorably (twice!) on a shift in focus by the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) from recommending drinking water standards for toxic industrial chemicals to a focus on natural algae blooms, see:
Algae blooms don’t have high powered corporate lobbyists and lawyers and they don’t make political campaign contributions to politicians – like NJ based Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Jansen, Dupont, 3M, Monsanto, et al do.
Those same corporations dole out a lot of money to Foundations – who fund environmental groups and media – so it is no surprise that environmental groups are not working on the issues and media writes cover stories to divert attention from the public health risks and impacts of these chemicals.
Algae blooms are a very easy target of regulators, compared to the war that is waged by major corporate polluters to block regulation of their toxic pollution.
Contrary to the cover story that Mr. Hurdle reports, I’m fairly sure that this shift in focus by the DWQI is a result of pushback for their recent work on Dupont and 3M manufactured “forever chemicals”.
The shit is now hitting the fan as water systems across the state report violations of those standards, which were recently adopted by DEP. And in even more journalistic malpractice, Mr. Hurdle is reporting on only one water system, Middlesex Water Co.
Strangely, Hurdle has written 5 stories on that single water system, while I’ve written about and given him DEP enforcement data that at least 50 systems are in violation, including 17 public water supply systems and 11 schools.
More importantly, the DWQI shift in focus to algae blooms is a strategic preemptive strike on the DWQI to prevent them from developing any more new drinking water standards for hundreds of unregulated chemicals that they KNOW are present in your drinking water, including pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, and hundreds of other toxic chemicals.
This includes the failure of the Murphy DEP to adopt drinking water standards for Perchlorate, standards that were proposed by the Corzine DEP but killed by the Christie Executive Order and DEP Commissioner Bob Martin, see:
This includes DEP’s failure to adopt drinking water standards for more than a dozen toxic chemicals previously recommended by the DWQI – see this page for prior DWQI recommendation for MCLs for hazardous chemicals that DEP has not acted upon.
This includes unregulated pharmaceuticals that the DWQI and DEP KNOW are in your drinking water, see:
This includes unregulated class of chemicals known as “endocrine disruptors” that USGS documented in NJ drinking water, see:
Finally, the shift in focus to algae conveniently obscures a crucially important prior April 2010 DEP Report to the Drinking Water Quality Institute, see:
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is focusing on new approaches to address the occurrence of unregulated contaminants found in drinking water throughout the State. These chemicals may be present individually or as mixtures, they are present at low concentrations, and little if any toxicity information is available for most of them. Discussions on possible new approaches for addressing their occurrence began in the 1990s when synthetic organic contaminants were discovered in a water system supplied by groundwater. Subsequently, many additional studies in the State have been conducted, and the Department is currently investigating the possibility of a “treatment technique” approach to regulating mixtures of organic chemicals in drinking water, as summarized below
Implementation of a DEP’s recommended “Treatment Based Approach” would cost private water companies hundreds of millions of dollars, which they would likely recover from lawsuits against the corporate polluters who poisoned the public water supply source water.
So, of course it was opposed by those powerful corporate interests.
The DEP initially solicited formal public comments on this new regulatory strategy and “treatment based approach” way back in 2004 (see NJ Register Public Notice), but never followed through on it.
That DEP 2010 “treatment based approach” policy paper is based on several prior and ongoing DEP research projects, most of which focused on important questions, including:
The overall objective of this project is to investigate the effectiveness of conventional and advanced water treatment processes for the removal of unregulated organic chemicals (UOCs) such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products and industrial and household use organic chemicals from surface water systems. Specifically, this research is designed to answer several questions including: 1) What UOCs are removed by conventional water treatment processes? 2) What additional UOCs are removed with advanced processes such as GAC and ozone? 3) What per cent removal can be achieved with conventional and conventional plus advanced processes? 4) What process design parameters and operating conditions are associated with these removals? 5) How effective are current analytical methods in quantifying low levels of UOCs? 6) Is it plausible for NJ to consider a “treatment-based” regulatory approach for managing UOCs in drinking water in the state?
DEP found that there are over 500 unregulated toxic chemicals in NJ drinking water and “little if any toxicity information is available for most of them.”
DEP and the DWQI are flying blind. The public has no idea if their drinking water is “safe”.
For over a decade, DEP has known that treatment can remove the unregulated chemicals known to be present in your drinking water and yet done nothing.
More recently, back in November, the DWQI solicited public comments on recommendations for how to improve regulation of drinking water or which chemicals they should prioritize for MCL development.
We wrote to recommend that DWQI and the DEP finally implement the April 2010 recommended shift to a “treatment based approach” see:
Remarkably, instead of doing that and taking on the huge battle with Big Pharma, Petro-Chemical and private water companies that would entail, the DWQI folded the tent and shifted to algae blooms.
And Jon Hurdle at NJ Spotlight cheered that cowardly and irresponsible shift.
Who will the people about this?