The Origin Of NJ DEP Science Advisory Board Was In Suppression OF Publication Of DEP Risk Assessment Science On PFOA In Drinking Water
Incredible History – Smoking Gun Memo
Corzine DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson Put That In Writing
California’s adoption of a drinking water standard for toxic hexavalent chromium triggered thoughts of a series of NJ DEP scandals we exposed 15 years ago.
In now re-reading some of those documents, I came across a smoking gun memo leaked to us that provides important historical information, particularly in light of the recent long delayed DEP regulatory action on “forever chemicals”.
People wonder why it takes so long for DEP to act to protect public health and the environment.
The DEP memos we released shed light on that question.
At the time, I viewed those memos through the lens of scientific suppression of DEP toxicological research on “forever chemical” PFOA, and issued this press release:
In October 2008, a PFOA risk assessment paper prepared by New Jersey Department of Environmental protection scientists was “pulled from submission for publication” under orders from then DEP Commissioner Jackson. Her rationale was the need for additional peer review, even though the paper had already been peer reviewed and was undergoing vetting before publication in the prestigious peer review journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Several months after Jackson left DEP, the study, entitled “Occurrence and Potential Significance of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Detected in New Jersey Public Drinking Water Systems”, was eventually published in the journal’s May 8, 2009 edition. Despite this risk assessment evidencing the need for stricter standards, New Jersey has yet to incorporate it into drinking water limits. Neither has EPA, which is grappling with the issue now under Jackson.
With respect to suppression of that science, which long delayed DEP regulatory action, we can now see exactly how that was justified and the suppression justified.
The suppression of science was not limited to the single chemical PFOA – it was institutionalized at DEP via formation of a Science Advisory Board, whose express function was to block DEP science under the guise of “peer review” (by private sector industry scientists).
Check these extraordinary smoking gun memos out (boldface mine):
The Corzine DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson ordered Eileen Murphy, PhD., the DEP’s Director Of Science and Research, to block the release of a DEP scientific paper on the public health risks of “forever chemical” PFOA. Jackson wrote (boldface mine):
>>> Lisa P. Jackson 10/23/2008 1:29 PM >>>
Eileen,
I believe this paper should be pulled from submission for publication pending the results of a peer review by a panel of scientists. I believe the same requirement
should be applied to all scientific papers by memebers (sic) of this department that are
based on work they do for this department or data that they have access to
because of their work for this department. I thought that was the SOP now? If
not, it should be.
Lisa
Taken aback by that Order, Director Murphy responded to Commissioner Jackson, Murphy wrote:
For my own clarification – you are asking us to halt the external peer review being conducted by the journal and initiate our own DEP peer review of the paper?
Eileen A. Murphy, Ph.D.
Commissioner Jackson replied to confirm that order:
From:
Lisa P. Jackson
To:
Murphy, Eileen, Tormey, Catherine, Sondermeyer, Gary, Godoski, Jennifer,
Herb, Jeanne
Date:
Wed, Oct 29, 2008 2:50 AM
Subject:
Re: Fwd: Draft PFOA technical paper
I would like you and Jeanne to agree on a course of action. I do not believe we
will have this problem again since the new SAB will need to review any scientific
paper that is related to DEP work or data before it is published.
Did you get that?
“I do not believe we will have this problem again”. Just what was the “problem” Jackson referred to?
The “problem” was that DEP publicly released a scientific paper with data and a risk assessment that showed alarming risks to NJ’s drinking water and highlighted the need for DEP to take regulatory action.
The DEP scientists released this paper based on science and traditional scientific journal pre-publication peer review. They did not seek DEP “management” political review.
Note also how Jackson stated that this “problem” was solved: “the new SAB will need to review any scientific paper that is related to DEP work or data before it is published”.
So the SAB was designed to suppress controversial science and control DEP scientists.
The SAB was later populated with industry scientists, including a representative of Dupont.
See how that works?
You can read the complete chain of the original emails here.
So, the next time you hear the current DEP Commissioner – a former corporate polluters’ lawyer – talk about science and regulation and DEP’s so called stellar and aggressive policy and program, consider this history.
BTW, following this suppression at DEP, Ms. Jackson went on to serve a controversial one term as the Obama EPA Administrator.