NJ is “Separate and Unequal” When it Comes to Pollution and Health Risks

Industry Lies on Cumulative Risks and Environmental Injustice

Christie Administration In Denial and Delay Mode

Source: US EPA "National Air Toxics Assessment" (NATA - 2005)

Lies by the chemical industry about the environmental and health effects of their products are nothing new – entire books have been written about that (e.g. see:  Doubt is Their Product – How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by professor David Michaels).

But, those lies have become much more nuanced and sophisticated, typically requiring scientific and legal expertise to detect and expose, as professor Michaels did so effectively in his superb book.

Hal Bozarth. lobbyist, NJ Chemistry Council (AKA "The Godfather of NJ Toxics")

So, I’m actually happy to report, that nuance and sophistication were not the case recently in Trenton, when Hal Bozarth, chief lobbyist for the NJ Chemical industry (AKA “The Godfather of NJ Toxics”), repeatedly and obviously lied and mislead in testimony to the Assembly Environment Committee on an environmental justice bill, A3836.

(see Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight story on the May 13 hearing:  Bill Would Enforce Environmental Justice, Keep Polluters out of Poor Urban Areas)

I’m happy to report those lies and distortions because they open the door and become an opportunity to educate legislators and media on long ignored and complex scientific and regulatory issues. Ironically, Bozarth’s testimony was so egregious that it actually advances the compelling arguments in favor of the bill.

This is a very big deal, because the chemical industry blatantly lied about EPA and DEP research and air monitoring initiatives in NJ. Those lies were used to support a series of false or misleading claims that:

• there is no scientifically valid methodology currently available to assess cumulative impacts and/or cumulative risks from chemical exposures;
• the best available studies in 3 NJ urban areas indicate that health risks are below levels of concern;
• the best available studies in 3 urban areas suggest that the detected pollutants of concern are emitted by mobile sources (cars, trucks, ships, planes, trains) and not by stationary sources like chemical plants and refineries; and
• US EPA and NJ DEP studies have found that air quality is no worse in urban NJ than elsewhere in the state.

So, let’s get right down to it and start with what the bill does and exactly what Bozarth lied about in his testimony.

The key technical feature of the bill involves what the wonks call “cumulative impacts” or “cumulative risk”.

The bill would authorize DEP to deny environmental permits where consideration of cumulative impacts pose unaceptable risks.

I lay some of this out in a letter today to Chairwoman Spencer, the bill’s sponsor

Dear Chairwoman Spencer:

Re: clarification and correction of chemical industry testimony on A3836

Apologies for delay in providing this information, which I promised during my May 13, 2013 testimony before your committee on your bill, A3836.

As I testified, Mr. Bozarth’s testimony was false and/or misleading.

As promised, I now would like to followup in more detail to point out specifically where the testimony of Mr. Bozarth of the NJ Chemistry Council was false and/or misleading in statement or inference, as follows.

Lies and distortions by the chemical industry about the environmental and health effects of their products are nothing new – entire books have been written about that subject (e.g. see:  Doubt is Their Product – How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by professor David Michaels).

There are also relevant science, regulatory, and policy documents that Bozarth failed to mention that I will touch on briefly.

1. Mr. Bozarth testified that US EPA and NJ DEP had conducted cumulative risk studies in Elizabeth, Paulsboro, and Paterson, and found no cumulative risk problems, inferring that there were no “unreasonable risks” the bill sought to address. Both statements are false and misleading, as set forth below.

2. Directly contradicting that statement, he then testified that scientific tools to assess cumulative risk do not yet exist.

3. Bozarth stated that those studies found that air quality is urban areas was no worse than in other areas of NJ. THis statement is false according to DEP data in the Report cited by Mr. Bozarth, as set forth below.

Taken in order, here are the facts, with verbatim excerpts of the documents and links to the studies Bozarth cited in his testimony:

1. Elizabeth and Paulsboro studies

The Elizabeth (Mabel Holmes Middle School) and Paulsboro (High School) studies were conducted by US EPA. These studies did not assess or include findings on cumulative risk, as stated by Bozarth.

The EPA studies of outdoor air quality near two NJ schools were part of a national monitoring program purportedly designed “to understand whether outdoor toxic air pollution poses health concerns to schoolchildren.” The EPA school monitoring program was triggered by a USA Today investigative series. A commitment for EPA to conduct the study was extracted by US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer during Lisa Jackson’s EPA confirmation hearing 

(look at the photo I took of that at this link: http://www.wolfenotes.com/2009/01/politics-versus-science/#more-497

The EPA schools study did not emerge from within EPA professionals or a credible scientific body, and the study itself reflects inadequate scientific development and vetting made difficult by political intervention. 

EPA sampled outdoor air in the area of 63 schools in 22 states – see EPA’s description of the program, with all data and findings:

http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/about.html

The EPA study methodology did NOT conduct cumulative impact or cumulative risk assessment, but instead was based on air monitoring and individual chemical specific analysis, based on a comparison with EPA derived health screening values for individual chemicals.

There are serious flaws in this study, including:

a) the small number of chemicals sampled – industry emits thousands of chemicals and the Clean Air Act regulates 187 “Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP’s), yet EPA sampled for just 45 compounds;

b) the EPA study failed to consider community susceptibility or cumulative impacts or cumulative risks from human exposure to multiple chemicals via multiple exposure pathways (e.g. air, water, soil, food) – or synergistic or subtle developmental effects;

c) EPA screening values were over 200 times HIGHER than NJ DEP health based screening values. If EPA had used NJ DEP’s screening values, almost all samples would have exceeded health levels of concern. 

For example, EPA used screening values of 90 micrograms/cubic meter for acetaldehyde and 30 micrograms/cubic meter for benzene, a known human carcinogen.

In comparison, the NJ DEP’s “health benchmark”  screening values for acetaldehyde is 0.45 micrograms/cubic meter (200 times lower than the EPA value) and 0.13 micrograms/cubic meter for benzene (230.7 times lower than the EPA value). For DEP “health benchmarks” and their derivation, see this link:

http://www.nj.gov/dep/airtoxics/njavg05.htm

d) the EPA selected pollutants that are emitted by mobile and stationary sources, making it difficult or impossible to determine the source of the pollutant detected with any degree of confidence. Accordingly, Mr. Bozarth’s repeated claims that the large majority of the pollution comes from mobile sources finds no basis in this particular study.

2. Paterson Study

The Paterson study was funded and reviewed and approved by US EPA, but conducted by NJ DEP. It is known as “UCAMPP”, for Urban Community Air Toxics Monitoring Project – see this for DEP study:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/paterson/

First of all, in contrast to EPA studies above, the Paterson DEP UCAMPP study initially WAS designed as followup “environmental justice” research project and the final draft Report did include cumulative risk assessment findings.

Specifically, page 61 from Draft report showed unacceptably high combined cancer risks – see a copy of that page here:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2010/02/dep-guts-science-on-cumulative-cancer-risks-in-paterson-nj/

But, as I wrote on February 10, 2010, those and other important findings were deleted from the version released to the public. This amounts to political suppression of scientific findings, a corrupt practice that has no place in government.

Secondly, the Paterson study used an air monitoring station located in Chester, NJ as a “background” station. 

Contrary to Mr. Bozarth’s claim, according to DEP’s data, the air in Chester NJ is far less polluted than the air in Paterson, and the people of Paterson are exposed to significantly higher health risks from air pollution, compared to residents of Chester.

As some others testified on your bill, this is the definition of “separate and unequal”.

3. Previous DEP conclusions on “disproportionate burden” and available cumulative risk tools

A December 2009 DEP Report documented that NJ’s urban areas were suffering disproportionate pollution burdens – see: 

A Preliminary Screening Method to Estimate Cumulative Environmental Impacts

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/ej/docs/ejc_screeningmethods20091222.pdf

As I wrote back on December 5, 2009:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2009/12/dep-discovers-discrimination-dumps-environmental-justice-issue-in-christies-lap/

“DEP considered 9 indicators of environmental and/or public health impact: 1. cancer rates; 2. diesel emissions; 3. ambient benzene levels (a carcinogen); 4. traffic (all); 5. traffic (trucks); 6. density of DEP regulated industrial facilities; 7. density of toxic waste sites; 8. density of dry cleaners (toxic air emissions) and 9. density of junkyards.

For every single one of those indicators, the adverse impacts increased directly as the percentage of minority and poor residents increased.

DEP data conclusively demonstrates that poor and minority communities bear disproportionate impacts.

The strength of the correlation between race and income and adverse environmental & health impact demands that DEP take action to remedy this injustice. DEP must enforce existing environmental regulations to mitigate these impacts and develop tough new standards to prevent and better protect already over-burdened EJ communities.”

As I’m sure you are aware, the NJ Environmental Justice Advisory Council also has done considerable work on this issue since then, including a Report on cumulative impact methodologies and issues 

STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/ej/docs/ejac_impacts_report200903.pdf

Also please see my followup post of April 11, 2012

Dissenting Report Rips Christie DEP Commissioner Martin On Environmental Justice

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2012/04/dissenting-report-to-christie-dep-commissioner-martin-on-environmental-justice/

4. EPA “Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment”

For interested readers, the EPA national school ambient air monitoring initiative sampled outdoor air quality for a handful of pollutants at two NJ schools – hit the links for one in Mabel Holmes Middle School in Elizabeth and one in Paulsboro High School.

A summary of the EPA initiative can be found here, the sampled pollutants here and the actual results here.

Source: NJDEP air toxics screening values

Source: US EPA School Monitoring screening values

NATA 2005 findings: