Here’s today’s story pitch to a NJ Spotlight reporter:
Hi Michael – I’m a retired DEP policy planner (After Cornell grad school, I began at DEP in 1985, working on the 1984 HSWA to RCRA – 14 years), former Policy Director of Sierra Club (7 years) and Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (whistleblower group PEER – 10 years). I had a column at the Star Ledger(before they “fired” me for posting links to the European press reporting on the Abu Ghraib torture photos). I blog at www.wolfenotes.com and Substack https://bwolfe.substack.com/publish/home
I appreciate your work, but would like to suggest a few ideas and pitch stories within your Hazard NJ narrative. Each story is significant and has not been reported in NJ.
1. Unreported drought related stories
a) Low river and stream flows significantly increase concentrations of chemicals in the rivers. These river flows are far less than the dilution DEP assumes when they issue wastewater discharge permits to sewage treatment plants and industrial dischargers (known as the “7Q 10 flow”).There are very few chemical specific limits in the wastewater discharge permits (see “whole effluent toxicity”). These same rivers are used for drinking water supply. Not all chemicals are removed from the wastewater discharges and the drinking water treatment systems do not remove all chemicals in the source water from the river. These chemicals pass through the treatment process and are present in your tap water. DEP has documented over 500 chemicals present in NJ drinking water, almost all with unknown health risks. Almost all of these chemicals are unregulated (“emergent contaminants”). In fact, PFOA, PFNA, PFAS “forever chemicals” were “emergent contaminants” until they became regulated recently. It takes time consuming and expensive rigorous data collection, studies, risk assessments, and administrative procedures to set just 1 chemical drinking water “Maximum Contaminant Level” (MCL). This takes years. It is not feasible to establish 500 MCL’s.
DEP recognized these threats 20 years ago. In concert with the Drinking Water Quality Institute, DEP issued a “White Paper” that recommended a “treatment based approach”, whereby instead of individual chemical specific risk assessments and MCL’s, they would mandate granular activated carbon treatment at drinking water treatment facilities that relied on certain susceptible source waters.
DEP abandoned that effort – the drought greatly magnifies these risks.
b) The Flint Michigan drinking water crisis was caused by changing the source water for the drinking water system. As a result, different water chemistry leached lead from distribution system pipes.
In the recently adopted DEP Water Supply Plan, DEP admits that NJ experienced very similar problems in 2016 – 2017 that were created by DEP Orders that mandated water purveyors transfer water from one system to the other (see page 204 – 205 of Chapter 7). The current DEP “drought warning” Order again authorizes DEP to mandate water transfers, but it appears that the underlying water chemistry and physical scouring of contaminants in the pipes remain, just like in Flint.(see paragraph #7, page 3)
2. Unreported toxic waste sites and toxic hazards
There has been extensive coverage of Superfund sites in NJ, but none that report that there are far more RCRA “Corrective Action” sites that pose equal or even higher risks to human health and the environment. (The Dupont Pompton Lakes site is just one of them).
3. Unreported risks of chemical facilities
a) There are huge chemical hazards in NJ regulated by DEP under NJ’s “Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act” (TCPA, enacted in response to the disaster in Bhopal, India). I can’t recall any NJ media coverage of TCPA in over a decade.
b) There are hundreds of chemical manufacturing and storage facilities regulated by DEP under NJ’s “Right To Know” law. We only read about them after disasters, like the recent Passaic fire (and what ever happened to the Murphy Executive Order and proposed legislation to address those risks?)
[Update: I forgot that this issue was covered extensively in a Bergen Record multi-part series Hazards Next Door which included an interactive map with hazardous sites, the chemicals stored there and the health risks: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2023/01/10/nj-chemical-plant-fires-put-danger-to-homes-in-the-spotlight/69748848007/ ~~~ end update].
c) There was a railroad derailment of chemicals that forced evacuation of Paulsboro NJ. It occurred long before the nationally prominent East Palestine disaster. Yet the NTSB investigation Report of Pauslboro was never covered, particularly the massive flaws in DEP prevention, preparation and response – ALL of which were repeated in East Palestine.
4. What ever happened to the stories about the risks of endocrine disruptors?
Google “dual sexed fish found in NJ rivers” – and look at this recent Pinelands study.
USGS has done a LOT of work, see:
5. Hazardous Air Pollutants – local emissions sources, health risks and DEP regulation under the Clean Air Act
The NJ press used to report on these risks, including EPA Cancer Risk maps that showed excess cancer risks in NJ. I haven’t seen a story on these risks in years.
Note: EPA has not issued a national Report in over 10 years. And I could not find the cancer risk HAP maps on their website.
EPA issued the most recent Report to Congress in 2014. The most recent Reports/maps I could find are from 2005: I’ve reached out to EPA to get current data under their “new paradigm” for air toxics:
- 2005 NATA US Cancer Risks County (xls) (MS Excel)
- 2005 NATA US Neurological Risk County (xls) (MS Excel)
- 2005 NATA US Respiratory Risk County (xls) (MS Excel)
6. Do the DEP’s “Environmental Justice” regulations and the “Stressor Guidance” document apply to and regulate public health risks from #3- #5? Or to the cleanup of toxic waste sites?
(the answer if NO, for several reasons. Primarily, existing pollution emissions allowed under current permits are effectively exempt from the EJ law, which only applies to NEW or EXPANDED emissions. There are several other reasons.)
I’ve pitched over a dozen stories here – award winning stuff.
If you think that’s over the top, I pitched many of the stories and was an expert source for the Bergen Record’s award winning expose “Open For Business” series which won a national journalism award for “A New Genre of Environmental Reporting” the John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism.
[End Note: The many press reports on “forever chemicals” not only displaces coverage and diverts attention and media reporting on more significant risks.
It creates the false impression that the risks posed by unregulated chemicals are being well managed by aggressive government regulation. It also creates the false impression that risks from individual chemicals like “forever chemicals” are anomalies, were unknown discoveries by government, are unique, and are being addressed by government regulators.
In fact, exactly the OPPOSITE is true: the risks are not from individual chemicals, but from hundreds of chemicals. These risks are not unique, individual, or unknown by government scientists. The risks are pervasive and the regulatory system is flawed and government regulators are too captured by powerful corporate interests to protect public health. ~~~ end note]