,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Keith says the results, analyzed by a RI lab, were emailed to a low level DEP staffer on Dec. 26, '18 (left). This directly contradicts DEP's version in April, that they received the results AFTER the HIA was published (i.e. early January '19) (right) desmogblog.com/2019/04/18/air… 2/7 
Keith then seems to throw the staffer under the bus, saying he personally received the results only on January 4, '19, the day the HIA was published, and did not know the DEP received them ten days earlier. 3/7
Besides the problematic abdication of responsibility, what's interesting is Keith's indirect admission that the sample results are significant: HAD he received them in time, he would have incorporated these crucial data in the HIA. A reminder: the HIA greenlighted the permit 4/7
Fascinatingly, Keith also revealed DEP conducted *more* undisclosed air samples at the Weymouth site. In total, 9 different samples were analyzed by RI b/w August-November. All showed elevated levels of pollutants. None were included in the HIA. 5/7 desmogblog.com/2019/05/08/und…
The state lab in RI confirmed to me that nearly all the samples were analyzed within two weeks of receipt and had the DEP asked for the results sooner, the lab would have gladly provided them. Why didn't DEP call the lab earlier to include these damning results in the HIA? 6/7
Keith then contradicts himself by saying that DEP never intended to include the samples in the HIA. But emails I obtained suggest otherwise: senior DEP air staff discussed them during the HIA, anticipating the need to explain them if they diverged from other samples taken. 7/7
As I've previously done with reports on new information concerning health and pollution, I'm CC'ing several stakeholders: @grumpygrumpyowl @FRRACS_MA @nathanpboston @Curt_Nordgaard @MayorBobHedlund
