WolfeNotes.com

Republican Rollbacks Never Restored 

Over Time, The Policy Of Continuity Goes In One Deregulatory Direction

On this Earth Day, instead of issuing the standard warning to get the hip boots on because the bullshit will be deep, I thought I’d reflect on a disturbing trend in the historical direction of environmental policy.

Let’s call it the “deregulatory ratchet” (TM).

In politics and media, there is a similar dynamic called the Overton Window. Over time, the corporate right have shifted the Overton Window sharply to the right, such that what was unthinkable just a few years ago is now considered a viable and reasonable policy agenda (which we have called fascism, see:

• The Right Wing’s New Long Game Plan – “Project 2025″

The deregulatory ratchet operates in a similar fashion, to wit: Republican administrations roll back regulatory protections and the succeeding Democratic administrations never restore them and just move on to other issues.

The deregulatory ratchet has multiple policy features: deregulation, privatization, budget cuts, revolving doors, corporate capture, and co-optation of environmental groups are the primary mechanisms.

Some call this “Neoliberalism”, but we prefer our term “deregulatory ratchet” because that term is historical, dynamic, and provides a framework to drill down on the concrete substantive policy and program agenda that constitutes the “deregulatory ratchet”.

This term can promote transparency, media coverage, and accountability. In contrast, the term “Neoliberalism” is far too theoretical, abstract, and inaccessible. To some, the term even sounds good, i.e. a form of “liberalism”.

There are several factors that promote or enable the deregulatory ratchet to operate with impunity and without accountability.

These factors include a depleted media that lacks institutional memory, co-opted environmental groups led by mediocrities or incompetents (that’s you Doug O’Malley, Ed Potosnak, and Anjuli Ramos), and public officials who have corporate backgrounds and are increasingly willing to gaslight, manipulate, and even lie to the press and public (that’s you, Shawn LaTourette).

The Murphy administration and DEP Commissioner LaTourette provide a case study that perfectly illustrates the deregulatory ratchet. They have yet to restore Republican rollbacks going back 30 years to the Whitman administration and more recently 8 years of the Christie administration.

As a result, regulatory protections continue to erode; DEP budget, staff and science are increasingly inadequate to respond effectively; environmental groups are totally co-opted sycophants and cheerleaders; and as a result environmental quality and public health protections worsen across the board while corporate power increases.

So, with those thoughts in mind, here is my letter to DEP Commissioner LaTourette that provides the evidence to support my “deregulatory ratchet” theory. I think the current term for this letter is “the receipts”:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov” <Sean.Moriarty@dep.nj.gov>

Cc: “keith.cooper@rutgers.edu” <keith.cooper@rutgers.edu>, “O’Neill, James” <ONeillJ@northjersey.com>, “tmoran@starledger.com” <tmoran@starledger.com>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “ferencem@njspotlightnews.org” <ferencem@njspotlightnews.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, Robert Hennelly <rhennelly55@gmail.com>, “david@njglobe.com” <david@njglobe.com>, domalley <domalley@environmentnewjersey.org>, Anjuli Ramos <anjuli.ramos@sierraclub.org>, “Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club” <taylor.mcfarland@sierraclub.org>, “zoe.kelman@gmail.com” <zoe.kelman@gmail.com>

Date: 04/20/2024 6:36 AM EDT

Subject: NJ Leadership & Voluntary compliance – chromium in drinking water

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

California and NJ have long been national leaders in the adoption of science based stringent standards to protect public health and the environment for air, water, toxic site cleanup, chemical safety, energy, and climate.

In the nation’s most densely populated State with a legacy of industrial pollution, under federal and New Jersey State laws, NJ DEP has long adopted environmental standards that were broader in scope and more stringent than federal minimums. This reflects the federalism framework under federal environmental law, which allows States to adopt more stringent standards, based on local conditions and policy priorities.

However, NJ’s national leadership and policy of adoption of more stringent State standards were reversed by Governor Whitman’s 1994 Executive Order #27, as part of her “Open For Business” policy initiative.That Executive Order was never revoked.

Making things worse, on his first day in Office in 2010, Gov. Christie issued a package of “regulatory relief” Executive Orders: Executive Orders #1 (regulatory moratorium) Executive Order # 2 (regulatory relief), Executive Order #3 (Red Tape review), and Executive Order #4 (abdication of State role to local government).

As you know, those Christie Orders were revoked by Gov. Murphy’s EO #63, but that Order did not restore the policy of State leadership and more stringent State DEP standards that existed prior to the Whitman Order #27.

While there have been exceptions, since the Whitman administration, DEP has relied primarily on federal EPA standards. Whitman and Christie era regulations have been readopted without change. In fact, the Murphy DEP has readopted 51 regulations without change (see the DEP Rule Re-adoption Without Change page.)

With this context in mind, I am writing to followup on my recent email that requested the status of the DEP’s consideration of a State drinking water MCL for hexavalent chromium.

The State of California just adopted the first drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium.

The NJ DEP does not have a drinking water standards for hexavalent chromium.

As you know, in September 2010, DEP scientists assigned to the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute recommended a health based MCL for hexavalent chromium of 0.07 parts per billion: (see the Drinking Water Quality Institute’s meeting minutes for September 10, 2010:

3. Subcommittee Summaries—Subcommittee Chairpersons Health Effects—L. McGeorge: She noted first that the Subcommittee had adjusted its workplan, delaying action on radium and tertiary butyl alcohol to the first quarter of 2011; they would consider adding nitrates to their workload at a future meeting. Second, after A. Stern’s presentation at the previous Health Effects Subcommittee (HE) meeting on the slope factor developed by the NJDEP Chromium Workgroup for oral exposure to hexavalent chromium, the HE had accepted this slope factor as the basis for a Health-based MCL recommendation for hexavalent chromium at its September meeting. L. McGeorge distributed copies of a memorandum to the Testing and Treatment Subcommittees, recommending a health-based maximum contaminant level (HBMCL) of 0.07 μg/L for hexavalent chromium based on this slope factor.

Thus, hexavalent chromium is an unregulated chemical similar to the regulatory status  of the family of “forever chemicals PFAS prior to recent DEP regulation.

Upon adoption of drinking water standards for PFAS in 2020, the DEP issued a press release that touted national leadership – and also made a statement that even without that State regulatory standard, that there was “voluntary” compliance upon “detection” (DEP Press Release):

“Safe drinking water is a top priority for the Murphy Administration,” said Commissioner Catherine R. McCabe. “With the adoption of these standards, New Jersey continues to lead the nation in protecting public health and the environment from these chemicals, which have been detected at varying levels across the state. New Jersey’s water systems have worked voluntarily and productively with us over the years, taking steps to protect the public when these chemicals have been detected. By adopting formal standards, we are putting in place a clear regulatory framework that will ensure consistency in monitoring, public notification and treatment across the state.”

https://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2020/20_0025.htm

Has there been similar voluntary protections for hexavalent chromium, i.e.”New Jersey’s water systems have worked voluntarily and productively with us over the years, taking steps to protect the public when these chemicals have been detected.”

Have NJ water systems sampled for, detected, and treated hexavalent chromium to at least 0.07 ppb?

Accordingly, I strongly urge you to adopt the drinking water standards of 0.07 ppb recommended by DEP scientists back in 2010.

Thank you:

Bill Wolfe

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:

• Teflon Coats Public Agency Environmental Science – Jackson Sought to Have New Jersey PFOA Study Pulled from Publication

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.

She is now vice president of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, and a member of Apple’s executive team.

NJ Has A Long Legacy Of Toxic Hexavalent Chromium Pollution

But DEP Lacks A Drinking Water Standard For That Chemical

Christie DEP Rejected Scientists Recommendations For A Standard Back in 2010

California just adopted the nation’s first drinking water standard for the toxic chemical hexavalent chromium:

BY RACHEL BECKER

Cal Matters

APRIL 17, 2024

In an effort to protect more than 5 million Californians from a cancer-causing contaminant, state regulators today set a new standard that is expected to increase the cost of water for many people throughout the state.

The State Water Resources Control Board unanimously approved the nation’s first drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium, which is found naturally in some California groundwater as well as water contaminated by industries.

Now water suppliers will be forced to install costly treatment to limit the chemical in water to no more than 10 parts per billion — equivalent to about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

For the entire article, see

https://calmatters.org/environment/water/2024/04/california-water-standard-chromium

New Jersey DEP has not set a drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium – the most toxic form – despite a legacy of major chromium pollution and DEP regulatory scandals, see:

• Garfield Chromium Case Another Vindication of DEP Whistleblower

• NEW JERSEY SLAPS GAG ORDER ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS – Embarrassing Chromium Study Prompts Management Review of Scientific Findings

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

• TEFLON COATS PUBLIC AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE – Jackson Sought to Have DEP Study Pulled from Publication

• CHROMIUM POSES HIGHER LUNG CANCER RISK IN NEW JERSEY CITIES – State Ignored Staff Warnings of Continued Exposure Even in “Remediated” Sites

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

• High Chromium Danger Known by New Jersey Leaders Since 2007- Lisa Jackson and DEP Brass Decided to Proceed As If New Data Did Not Exist

In fact, the Christie DEP ignored the recommendations of DEP scientists to adopt a stringent standard back in 2010.

The Drinking Water Quality Institute’s meeting minutes for September 10, 2010:

3. Subcommittee Summaries—Subcommittee Chairpersons Health Effects—L. McGeorge: She noted first that the Subcommittee had adjusted its workplan, delaying action on radium and tertiary butyl alcohol to the first quarter of 2011; they would consider adding nitrates to their workload at a future meeting. Second, after A. Stern’s presentation at the previous Health Effects Subcommittee (HE) meeting on the slope factor developed by the NJDEP Chromium Workgroup for oral exposure to hexavalent chromium, the HE had accepted this slope factor as the basis for a Health-based MCL recommendation for hexavalent chromium at its September meeting. L. McGeorge distributed copies of a memorandum to the Testing and Treatment Subcommittees, recommending a health-based maximum contaminant level (HBMCL) of 0.07 μg/L for hexavalent chromium based on this slope factor.

Since then, this recommendation has been memory holed. See:

• The Chromium Pipe Treatment

The most recent chromium scandal is now playing out as a result of a national Report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

Based on EPA data, EWG that found that over 200 million Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of the carcinogen in drinking water, see the Newsweek story:

• CHROMIUM-6 FOUND AT ELEVATED LEVELS IN WATER OF 200 MILLION AMERICANS

“Bill Wolfe, with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that protects government whistleblowers, says the EPA is “absolutely not” doing its job to protect the public from chromium, and that it’s a case that “illustrates undue influence—agency capture—by major corporate polluters.”

The EWG national Report prominently featured New Jersey, and in doing so exposed gross negligence by the Christie DEP.

The Christie DEP ignored DEP’s own scientists’ recommendations to set a chromium drinking water standard of 0.07 parts per billion, recommendations issued way back in September 2010.

 The California standard exposes this scandalous DEP record.

Who will tell the people?

Are there any real environmental reporters still on the beat in NJ?

EPA Touts New Community Air Toxics Monitoring Program In Buffalo NY

Community activists have long demanded better air pollution monitoring in their neighborhoods, particularly in environmental justice communities where homes and schools are located very close to massive toxic polluters.

I have written numerous times to criticize DEP’s hazardous air pollution control program for failures to adequately monitor and regulate major toxic air pollution risks and impacts on nearby communities and hold polluters accountable.

So today, I was surprised to read a Biden EPA press release that basically admitted that EPA air pollution monitoring is not adequate.

But EPA seems completely out of touch with the fact that these flaws are national in scope and systemic in the EPA air pollution permitting program and can not be remedied by a one shot EPA local grant.

And EPA is clueless to the fact that the community air monitoring should be paid for by the polluters, not by taxpayers via EPA grants: (EPA press release)

EPA Highlights Air Pollution Monitoring Project in Buffalo, New York

NEW YORK (April 16, 2024) – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia and Dr. Eun-Hye Enki Yoo, Associate Professor, University at Buffalo and Senior Pastor George F. Nicholas, Lincoln Memorial United Methodist Church as well as other dignitaries gathered in Buffalo, NY to highlight a new collaborative project led by the University at Buffalo, SUNY. The university received almost $500,000 to deploy low-cost air pollution sensors at sampling sites in the residences of the underserved African American community in Buffalo. They will use this data to develop a community-specific air quality prediction model by integrating the new measurements with existing data. EPA specifically awarded funding, partly under Inflation Reduction Act, to increase monitoring in areas that are underserved to help them better understand what they are exposed to and to help them work with local and other officials to help address the sources of pollution.

“Knowledge is power and when people know more about what they are breathing, they can better participate in decisions that can address that pollution. This investment will provide the people of Buffalo with access to local air monitoring networks, which will raise community knowledge of air quality,” said Regional Administrator Lisa F. Garcia. “The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized direct community participation in information gathering to help reduce harmful air pollution.”

Yes, knowledge is power – but why isn’t EPA mandating this kind of monitoring in air pollution permits issued to major polluters and making them pay for it?

A Phone Call From The Front Office Overrides Science

I just came across my 2008 testimony to the NJ Senate Environment Committee in opposition to the proposed privatization of NJ’s toxic site cleanup program and the creation of a privatized Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program (read the transcript).

I just loved this quote – which was based on 14 years of DEP experience at the highest policymaking levels and close coordination with the Governor’s Office and legislative leadership- that speaks volumes:

Again, the term priority economic development is used in that section. I don’t know what that means. That, to me, means a phone call to the Governor’s Office and over to the Commissioner’s office. That’s what a priority economic activity is to me.

That’s how the game is played, and it’s only gotten worse over the last 16 years.

Word.

I explained the implications of this in a 2019 post:

First, DEP has no credible scientific basis to make any statement about the performance of the cleanup program because DEP has failed to implement or release to the public the “Remedial Priority System” (RPS) mandated by the Legislature over a decade ago. Without the RPS, DEP is literally flying blind and making shit up.

The legislature mandated that DEP adopt and implement the “Remedial Priority System” (RPS), which not only provides a valid, structured, risk based scientific basis for classifying and managing toxic sites, it also includes triggers for direct DEP oversight of high risk sites.

The Legislature also mandated that DEP publicly disclose a list of risk based sites in NJ.

The RPS originally was required by provisions of the Spill Act enacted over 30 years ago.More recently, the RPS agains was mandated by the 2009 Site Remediation Reform Act (“SRRA”, phonetically as in SURRENDER).

The legislature mandated that the RPS be adopted and implemented in DEP’s cleanup program by May, 7, 2010 (one year after enactment). DEP has flouted that legislative mandate for over 9 years.

Without a RPS, DEP is flying blind and has no scientific or factual basis to make any credible public statement.

The DEP’s priorities are set by other means.