INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER …

1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER campbell FROM: ZOE KELMAN, SITE REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUBJECT: NEW jersey CHROMIUM WORKGROUP REPORT DATE: 11/14/2005 CC: JEANNE HERB, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY, PLANNING AND SCIENCE JOSEPH SEEBODE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR SITE REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EILEEN MURPHY, DIVISION OF SCIENCE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOY MARK ROBSON, NEW jersey SCHOOL OF PUBIC HEALTH THOMAS COZZI, SITE REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RONALD CORCORY, SITE REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ROBERT HAZEN, DIVISION OF SCIENCE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOY JULIA BARRINGER, US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ROGER PAGE.

2 SITE REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THEODORE HAYES, SITE REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Text in red and in 12 pt font reflects responses from the workgroup chair, with assistance from the subgroup chairs. Not every point was commented upon, as there were time constraints. Many of the criticisms of the chromium workgroup raised in this memo seem to represent criticism of the risk based paradigm in general. The chromium cleanup criteria are based on the current risk based paradigm and not on a precautionary paradigm, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

3 It is the tool that both the federal and state government uses for determining acceptable risk. Other paradigms have been addressed in recent years and include the precautionary approach. This is a valid approach and deserving of attention. However, it is beyond the purview of this workgroup to change the paradigm. I have authored the attached report to inform you in detail of the serious problems related to the recommendations contained in the New jersey Chromium Workgroup Report. In your March 23, 2004 MEMORANDUM , you empanelled this workgroup to review the Department s current clean-up criteria for chromium and their 2 Although many members of the workgroup sought diligently to respond to your charge they were frustrated in their efforts.

4 In fact, as I document in the attached report, the workgroup members were specifically forbidden reviewing the current chromium standards or past remedial decisions. The 1998 criteria formed the framework and starting point for the workgroup deliberations and critical examination of the soundness of these criteria was the crux of the workgroup charge. As the charge of the workgroup was to examine the current science underlying the cleanup criteria and not to evaluate remedial decisions, reviewing remedial decisions, whether they were current or past, was not conducted.

5 While much of the discussion in my report is technical and finds fault with the workgroup report s reasoning and conclusions, my motivation is simply to protect public health. As we discussed in our previous e-mail correspondence, the New jersey Chromium Workgroup Report does not reflect the consensus of the Workgroup members and was written largely by NJDEP management with a clear bias for preserving the status quo and leaving the chromium cleanup criteria and remediation program unchanged. In fact, the report was authored in chapters, with each subgroup chair authoring the chapter for that subgroup.

6 There were four such chapters, and four such authors. None of the chapter authors were from the site remediation program. Further, an outside panel of experts was convened and asked to review the document. The comments from the peer review did not result in substantive changes to the recommendations of the workgroup. REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER New jersey Department of Environmental Protection RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHROMIUM A Counter Argument to the New jersey Chromium Workgroup s Recommendations By Zoe Kelman Hazardous Site Mitigation Engineer October 2005 Acknowledgement: Special thanks to: Robert Hazen, , John Froines, , Roger Page, , Julia Barringer, , Thomas McKee, and Robert Posey 4It is customary to put the acknowledgments section after the front page.

7 Also it is typical to specify the type of assistance provided (advice, proofreading, technical assistance, or help with preparation of the paper). It was discovered inadvertently that one of the individuals listed on the front page was unaware that this was being done. The person was concerned that having his name on the front page implied concurrence where it did not necessarily exist. Therefore, NJDEP correspondence was initiated with each of the individuals acknowledged in the acknowledgements to determine their levels of concurrence.

8 - Dr. Hazen, from DEP, reiterates that while he has issues with the workgroup report, he does not formally endorse this memo. - Dr. Page, from DEP, feels that the factual information provided is reflected truthfully. - Mr. McKee, retired from NJDEP in July 2004, continues to not respond to any emails from the chair of the workgroup. Despite repeated solicitations from the workgroup chair, Mr. McKee did not participate in workgroup deliberations after his retirement. - Mr. Posey, from DEP, admits that he proofread the memo.

9 - In an email to Zoe Kelman, Dr. Barringer, from USGS, states, My role was strictly to give advice on scientific issues. Therefore, I cannot take any stance on policy issues in the final Workgroup Report. Nor can I take any stance on policy issues in any minority reports that might arise, including your report. My only stance regarding any reports is supporting accurate descriptions of relevant scientific findings--this describes my role as a member of the Chromium Workgroup, and my role as a scientist. - Dr. Froines from UCLA wrote, I am not a co-author and my name should not appear on a cover page.

10 In a subsequent email, he wrote, I have reviewed the chromium document and found references to me on pages 15-17 [refer to pages 26-28 in this response to the MEMORANDUM ], 20 (refer to page 30 in this response to the MEMORANDUM ) and 25 (refer to page 38 in this response to the MEMORANDUM ]. The work described on pages 15-17 should be deleted and I have recently communicated that to Ms. Kelman. While we conducted an initial study that resulted in the findings described, we did not go further and complete the study for submission to a peer reviewed journal.)