WolfeNotes.com

wind farm, Atlantic City, NJ

Governor Corzine got tons of favorable media coverage and huge praise by environmental groups for signing the “landmark” 2007 Global Warming Response Act.

Does anyone remember the bill signing with Al Gore at a concert in the Meadowlands?

So, will Christie get covered and held accountable for its dismantling?

Read it and weep – news from PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)

Press Release

For Immediate Release: Thursday, March 25, 2010
Contact: Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

Christie Shreds New Jersey Climate Change Programs

Kills Emission Reporting, Diverts Green Energy Fund & Defunds Climate Office

Trenton – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has taken a wrecking ball to the state’s touted Global Warming Response Act, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In recent weeks, the Christie administration has blocked required reporting from greenhouse gas sources, diverted $300 million in Clean Energy Funds dedicated to energy efficiency and proposed to zero out the state’s Office of Climate Change and Energy.

“New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act is now a dead letter” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, referring to 2007 legislation regarded as the crowning environmental achievement of the Corzine administration.  “Whatever progress on climate change we can expect will have to come from Washington, because Trenton has gone AWOL.”

Apparently by mutual agreement of the ongoing Corzine and incoming Christie administration, a proposed rule to require monitoring and reporting of emissions of greenhouse gases was allowed to quietly die on January 20, 2010  – one year after it was first proposed. This emission monitoring regime is a key mandate of the state’s Global Warming Response Act. Without monitoring and reporting, New Jersey cannot track emissions or develop a regulatory program to meet the reduction milestones set forth in the Act.

On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted its first federal greenhouse gas monitoring requirements. Compared to EPA rules, however, the New Jersey law (and its now abandoned monitoring plan) is broader, covering more gases, more emissions sources and with lower thresholds. Ironically, in its public comments this fall, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) urged EPA proposal to integrate more stringent state rules.

Sweeping executive orders imposing a regulatory moratorium, cost-benefit analysis requirements, and a policy of rolling back to minimum federal standards in the first weeks of the Christie administration make it unlikely that any new plan for greenhouse gas monitoring will ever emerge again from DEP. Several other major environmental and public health policies, such as the recently shelved drinking water standard for perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, are apparently also destined for the scrap heap.

This Christie anti-regulatory stance is compounded by diversions of $300 million in Clean Energy Funds dedicated to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. In addition, Governor Christie’s proposed budget for FY 2011, beginning this July, will eliminate funding for the Office of Climate Change and Energy which is responsible for implementing the Global Warming Response Act, even diverting revenue from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emission credit auctions to the General Fund.

“The current governor has decided that investment in a clean energy future for New Jersey is a luxury that we can no longer afford,” added Wolfe.  “In terms of public health and welfare, New Jersey will soon start to resemble states like Mississippi that can only provide minimal state services.”

###

Look at the now moribund greenhouse gas reporting plan

View the official notice that the greenhouse gas reporting rule is dead

See DEP comments on limitations of EPA greenhouse gas reporting rule

Examine the scope of Christie eco-rollbacks, including the retreat on perchlorate

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability

Lt. Governor Guadagno (Regulatory Czar) Chairs the Red Tape Review Group

[Update 2 Bergen Record coverage: “Red Tape Committee hears gripes”

Several environmentalists urged the board to consider the impact of removing regulations that protect the environment and public health.

Bill Wolfe, director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said a rule that was frozen in the moratorium and later further delayed by the DEP was designed to reduce the amount of the chemical perchlorate in public water supplies.

[Update 1 below – passing the straight face test]

I hardly know where to begin, other than to say that after seeing it in action, that the “Red Tape Review” process is actually worse than I had imagined.

Never mind the duty to protect environment, there was absolutely no recognition that even the public interest was at stake – the hearing was purely a forum to allow private corporations to vent grievances and seek relief from various government regulatory oversight requirements (which were demonized as “red tape”).

From a news standpoint, the breaking news is that DEP Commissioner Bob Martin announced a new DEP Assistant Commissioner for Economic Development. Not only is this in conflict with DEP’s statutory mission to protect the environment, it is telling of the character and courage of the man that Martin announced it after his Senate confirmation and 2 media interviews. The man is not to be trusted.

Also newsworthy, was the huge embarrassment that the sledgehammer Christie Moratorium caused the DEP’s CAFRA Traffic Rule to expire, which may have killed the financing for a hotel development in Wildwood. Ironically, the traffic rule was proposed to alleviate parking requirements and provide a compromise solution to meet the developers needs. Martin denied any knowledge of the situation, but the developer was angry that he was assured that the rule would be adopted. (see Update below for details)

There was little recognition of the role of science in decisions and as the basis for rules (it was all politics and economics); no deference to the rule of law (i.e. regulations have the force and effect of law and can not be violated by private political agreements); little discipline, in terms of subjecting claims to factual support; and no sense that the access promised to corporate players was both unseemly and not transparent. And there was little humility by the (former County Sheriff) Lt. Governor, which is something one would expect given her paucity of knowledge or experience on Trenton regulatory matters.

Not only was there no humility, there was arrogance and posturing, as the Lt. Governor attacked absurd bureaucratic red tape she had found herself, as she sympathized with several business lobbyists in their quest for relief from the bureaucracy in Trenton.  (Why do Republicans who so hate government want to lead it?)

At the outset, Guadagno asked speakers to honor a 5 minute rule. A huge clock was there to remind. But just one speaker spoke for less that 7- 8 minutes, with several going from 10-12 minutes. Things were flexible. Only one or two had to be asked courteously to sum up after 8 or so minutes.

But, when I tried to testify (as 1 of only 2 public interests advocates amongst the corporate lobbyist hordes) about the specific 12 DEP rules frozen by EO #1 and why the “Common sense” principles of EO #2 didn’t make sense from an economic or environmental standpoint, my testimony was cutoff rather abruptly and rudely by Guadagno at exactly 5 minutes, 12 seconds. Contrary to decorum, I was not given the opportunity to sum up but was simply told to stop speaking.

Maybe that’s because I said that I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone – in that the focus of the conversation (i.e. on purported regulatory impediments to economic development) was so divorced from the real causes of the economic recession. And the prescriptions – more deregulation – were  completely absurd in light of the fact that lax regulatory oversight and deregulation policies had directly led to the financial collapse that caused the economic recession we’re in. Only a fool would ask for more, right?

So much for informed democratic dialogue and tolerance for differing views.

I couldn’t stomach Dave Pringle’s continuing apologetics and the corporate onslaught, and had to leave after 3 hours (sorry for missing the testimony of my colleague Grace Sica of NJ Sierra Club, the only other public interest advocate to testify).

Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono

Still watching and waiting for the Democrats to stand up to this juggernaut – Senator Barbara Buono kept her powder dry while I was there, with the exception of taking on a hospital spokesperson who opposed health statistics reporting requirements created by a bill she sponsored.

[Update: passing the straight face test:

1. Is there one credible economist who claims that regulatory burdens have caused or contributed to the economic recession we are in? Then how can reducing regulatory burdens stimulate economic growth?

2. There are thousands of DEP permits and approvals for projects that have not been built. To avoid expiration of those permits, the Legislature passed the Permit Extension Act (twice). So what economic growth benefits could possibly result from “streamlining” and “expediting” DEP permits and reducing DEP regulatory burdens?

3. Data show that DEP approves 99% of permits. How much more certain and predictable can DEP get? Given this data, how can any industry lobbyist complain that lack of certainty and predictability at DEP is what drives economic investment out of NJ to other states?

Failing the straight face test: (Star Ledger: 3/2/10)

Environmental activists said they feared the meetings would be an excuse for the governor to loosen protections for vulnerable ecosystems.

But Guadagno said that would not be the case — they were not reducing the type of regulations, but rather how they’re carried out.

“It’s in everyone’s best interest to make sure the environment in New Jersey is protected,” she said. “Let’s just do it in an efficient way. If people are not going to get a permit, tell them. Don’t send them from agency to agency to agency.”

Failing the straight face test #2:

Developers of a hotel in Wildwood railed against DEP allowing a proposed rule that would provide relief from CAFRA parking requirements to expire. DEP Commissioner Bob Martin claimed he knew nothing about it. But, there was a clear transition plan between Christie and Corzine regarding DEP rules in the pipeline. Here is the plan:

a) The Corzine DEP adopted 4 rules. See this:

b) Governor Corzine extended 8 key rules scheduled to expire in early 2010. According to a notice in the January 19, 2010 NJ Register: (42 NJR 468):

“In order to enable the incoming administration to conduct a review of agency rules, the Governor determined that an extension of the expiration dates for the chapters is appropriate. By the authority vested in him, Governor Jon S. Corzine on December 18, 2009 directed that the chapter expiration dates be extended, as specified below (see right hand column):

c) On January 20, 2010 Governor Christie issued Executive Order No. 1 which froze 12 DEP rules in the pipeline. See this. Since then, 1 was killed (perchlorate drinking water standard).

So if Bob Martin didn’t know about the CAFRA parking rule, he certainly should have. If he didn’t, who else was in charge of DEP Transition???

Lt. Governor Guadagno Chairs the "Red Tape Review Group"

Tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 pm at Montclair State, Governor Christie’s “Red Tape Review Group”  holds its third and final public hearing (there have been numerous private meetings with various business and industry groups). The focus is on “regulations that should be eliminated or modified based upon the “Common Sense Principles” for Rulemaking”.

I have written extensively about serious flaws in the “Red Tape” premises, policy, and processes established under Christie’s Executive Orders #1-3 (see below).

It is important that people who support strong environmental protections show up to counteract the influence of special interests.

The “Red Tape Review Group” already has generated two very bad bills targeted on DEP that are moving  quickly – see: A2464 (guts technical guidance documents needed to enforce many regulations, on the Assembly floor today) and A2486 (restricts rules more stringent than federal minimums and would put the Legislature in charge of future environmental standards and rules, released from Committee last week).

I am working on my testimony now, but will emphasize the following talking points:

1) Twelve (12) important DEP rules were targeted in EO #1 – all of them should have been exempt under EO #1 criteria regarding public health, safety, and welfare;

2) The criteria, standards, procedures and “common sense principles” in Executive Order 1 and 2 are seriously flawed when applied to environmental policy:

a) Use of Cost Benefit Analysis as a decision tool contradicts enabling statutory decision rules and promotes economic concerns above public health and environmental protections;

b) the Regulatory Czar powers are a radical departure and violate basic principles of  transparency and due process, which are the foundation of administrative law and practice

c) implementation would violate federal environmental laws, jeopardize federal funding, and prompt EPA direct assumption of State programs

3) There is no credible evidence to support the premise that environmental regulatory “red tape” has an adverse impact on the economy. In fact, much evidence suggests the opposite;

4) “Horror stories” and anecdotal information provided by self interested parties and the regulated community are a poor basis for public policy;

5) The “Red Tape Review Group” is based on a false diagnosis of the economic problem – the economic recession was caused by lack of effective regulation and corruption, greed and market failures on Wall Street. Given these causes, so called cures to rollback DEP and/or environmental protections are completely ill advised from an economic perspective. They not only will not solve the economic problem, they would make the environment far worse;

6) There are virtually no taxpayer or fiscal savings to be accomplished by cutting the DEP budget because 75% (or more) of DEP budget is federal funds, permit fees, and  enforcement fines and penalties; and

7) There is virtually no public support for rolling back public health and environmental protections. Monmouth University Poll found 79% opposed to that, on a bi-partisan basis. In fact, the public supports stronger protections.

The “Red Tape Review” process is part of  Governor Christie’s environmental rollback agenda (for some examples, see this and this and this and for more details on the Christie EO’s, the “Red Tape Review Process”, and what it all means, see:

Water Pollution Enforcement Put Under the Gun of Christie Moratorium

Safe Drinking Water Jeopardized by Christie Moratorium

Oil Industry Seeks Clean Air Rollback Under Christie Moratorium

Clean Water Held Hostage by Christie Moratorium

Democrats in Legislature Join Christie “Red Tape” Environmental Rollback Juggernaut

Christie Rule Freeze Kills Drinking Water Standard for Chemical Found in Rocket Fuel & Military Explosives

DEP Creates Sham Process To Cover Defects in Christie Orders

Christie Regulatory Moratorium Blocks Major Environmental Protections

Christie Environmental Rollbacks Echo Whitman’s Failed Policy

Christie Regulatory Czar Given The Power and Tools To Rollback Environmental and Public Health Protections

Christie off on the “Right” Foot – Executive Orders Attack Environmental Protections

Dems Make First Noise in Opposition to Christie War on the Environment

Today’s Star Ledger carries the first story of Trenton Democrats standing in opposition to the Christie War on the Environment.

Are the Dems and the media finally waking up?

In contrast to his meek performance during the Senate confirmation hearing on Christie DEP nominee Bob Martin (see: Abdication in Trenton), it looks like Senator Bob Smith finally has taken the gloves off:

Bob Smith, chairman of the Legislature’s environment and energy committee, and a member of the appropriations committee, has vowed to fight the governor over the RGGI funds and the Clean Energy Fund, which the governor appropriated last month.

“The question that will come back to me and the other policymakers will be how can we justify raiding this fund when there are much better alternatives. We should continue for at least another year with higher income taxes on our wealthier residents,” said Smith, who is a vocal advocate for economic stimulus through green jobs.

Christie plans to take $65 million from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) cap-and-trade program, in addition to $158 million from the Clean Energy Fund. The total diversion is now over $300 million.

The Clean Energy Fund is earmarked for energy efficiency and renewable-energy programs and supports thousands of good green jobs.

Strange bedfellows in Trenton - Hal Bozarth (L - Chemistry Council) and Dena Mottola (R- Environment NJ) join forces to oppose Christie Clean Energy and RGGI cuts. Both supported the sham RGGI cap and trade legislation as well.

The RGGI legislation was hijacked and so funds are not nearly as effective in terms of global warming emissions reductions or as closely linked to job production, because 60% is allocated to private sector energy producers, including large industrial polluters like oil refineries. Another 20% goes to economic development and consumer related activities, while the final 20% goes to relatively ineffective planning and potentially sham mitigation projects at DEP.

But it is easy to criticize cuts in spending that benefit both powerful corporations and labor, and do little to direct real changes in energy use. It is far harder to challenge the Governor on policy and regulations to defend real environmental interests. These efforts are often opposed by corporations and labor.

Now if only Bob Smith can mobilize his fellow Democrats to expand the opposition from diversion of energy money to the far larger and more damaging war on environmental regulations, we might be able to block some of the worst elements of the Christie rollback agenda (for some examples, see this and this and this and for more details on the Christie EO’s, the “Red Tape Review Process”, and what it all means, see:

Water Pollution Enforcement Put Under the Gun of Christie Moratorium

Safe Drinking Water Jeopardized by Christie Moratorium

Oil Industry Seeks Clean Air Rollback Under Christie Moratorium

Clean Water Held Hostage by Christie Moratorium

Democrats in Legislature Join Christie “Red Tape” Environmental Rollback Juggernaut

Christie Rule Freeze Kills Drinking Water Standard for Chemical Found in Rocket Fuel & Military Explosives

DEP Creates Sham Process To Cover Defects in Christie Orders

Christie Regulatory Moratorium Blocks Major Environmental Protections

Christie Environmental Rollbacks Echo Whitman’s Failed Policy

Christie Regulatory Czar Given The Power and Tools To Rollback Environmental and Public Health Protections

Christie off on the “Right” Foot – Executive Orders Attack Environmental Protections

Murderers Row: (L-R) Hal Bozarth (Chemistry Council); Lobbyist (Farm Bureau); Michael Engenton (Chamber of Commerce); & Dave Brogan (NJ Business and Industry Assc.). Jim Benton NJ Petroleum Council (rear) looks on from the shadows.

Christie Administration bill would put NJ in the lead nationally in building a bridge to the 19th century.

[Update – 7/6/10 – it only took a few months for Star Ledger to editorialize: New Jersey politicians shouldn’t meddle with science]

Legislation that would weaken and result in an across the board rollback of NJ’s strict clean air and water pollution, drinking water, toxic waste cleanup, wetlands, pesticides, and at least 40 other public health and environmental standards was released by the Assembly Regulatory Oversight Committee today.

Assemblyman Burzichelli, sponsor of A2486

The bill, A2486 (Burzichelli) would prohibit state agencies from adopting any standards that were more stringent that federal requirements, unless each one were individually specifically authorized by the Legislature. It implements the “common sense principles” of Governor Christie’s Executive Order #2.

Christie’s DEP Transition Report and Executive Orders #1-4 have unleashed a backlash and given the green light for the Legislature and Regulatory Czar’s “Red Tape Review Group“ to dismantle the structure of NJ’s regulatory protections that has evolved over the last 40 years.

There is no dispute that DEP and environmental regulations are the targets of the bill.

The bill is supported as a core element of the business & industry’s attack on costly but much needed environmental protections, which they have scapegoated as causes of the economic recession. A broad attack by polluters is capitalizing on the economic crisis to accomplish long sought rollbacks, under the pretext of reducing “red tape“, promoting investment, and making NJ economically competitive.

The bill would stand 40 years of federal and state environmental law on its head. NJ has long led the nation with scores of progressive environmental initiatives, while NJ has severe environmental challenges that fully warrant stronger protections than national minimums. Amendments, not available at the time of the hearing, exempted existing regulations, but did not eliminate the barrier to much needed new regulations to achieve things like global warming emissions reductions and compliance with clean air and water standards.

US Supreme Court

From an administrative law standpoint, the bill turns back the clock 80 years to governing before the New Deal.

The New Deal created a new model, referred to as the administrative state, whereby Congress passed laws setting broad legislative policy goals that delegated power to administrative agencies staffed with scientists and experts to fill in the details via regulations.

The New Deal governing model initially was resisted by the US Supreme Court under a 19th century “delegation doctrine“. The New Deal model has long been opposed by business interests and attacked by ideological extremist right wing legal advocates at places like the Federalist Society and Cato Institute.

NJ Governor Chris Christie

The bill would require Legislative approval of specific regulatory proposals. That puts the Legislature – who lacks expertise and staff capability to make complex scientific judgments – in charge. This basically restores the non-delegation doctrine in effect before the New Deal.

So, the Christie Administration’s bill would put NJ in the lead nationally in building a bridge to the 19th century.

As my Grandfather said” “How do you like ‘dem apples?”

Here is my testimony (listen to the hearing).

Testimony on Assembly bill No. A-2486

Assembly Regulatory Oversight Committee

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

March 18, 2010

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Bill Wolfe, Director of NJ PEER, a national organization that supports professionals in environmental agencies; promotes scientific integrity and transparency; and seeks strict enforcement of environmental laws and ethics. I previously was employed for 13 years by DEP, where I worked on numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives.

I am here to oppose the bill for the following reasons:

1. The bill would stand the framework of 40 years of federal and state environmental law on its head. Federal environmental laws set minimum national standards and states have consistently adopted stricter state level regulatory standards.

In fact, federal preemption of state environmental law to set uniform national standards is rare.

NJ US Senator Frank Lautenberg

I recall a recent controversial major battle over the preemption issue whereby NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg secured amendments to preserve NJ’s right to more strictly regulate chemical facilities under NJ TCPA law, as opposed to federal preemption under the Clean Air Act’s Section 112 R accidental release prevention and Homeland Security programs.

Let me offer an illustration of what’s at stake here. This issue of federal standards and regulatory relief was last the subject of debate during the Whitman Administration and her STARR Report and EO 27:

At that time, we disclosed a July 29, 1994 memo from then DEP Assistant Commissioner Lou Nagy to Commissioner Shinn. The memo compared DEP’s strict standards with weaker EPA requirements and warned of a significant increase in the number of potential fatalities. This was not some tree hugger warning, it came from Shinn’s own Assistant Commissioner (complete memo found on page 126 of Whitman EPA confirmation transcript) who wrote to Shinn to warn about:

“Industry (e.g., CIC and NJBIA) would obviously prefer backing off to the EPA thresholds.However, the increases made by EPA on adoption were so large (averaging some 18 times the TCPA values with 33 of the 60 substances common to both lists assigned from 5 to 167 times corresponding TCPA values) that they are not technically justifiable in an area as densely populated as New Jersey where substances are generally handled on small sites, and would correlate with a significant increase in the number of potential fatalities.”

2. This bill would create chaos in current DEP environmental programs and amount to a dismantling of NJ environmental and public health protections.

The NJ Legislature has enacted numerous laws that authorize DEP to adopt regulatory standards.

In my recent testimony on A2464, I listed 44 specific DEP regulatory programs where DEP has adopted regulations that exceed or fill gaps in federal programs. I do not wish to repeat that list today, but would add MTBE, radon and at least 14 other NJ specific drinking water standards as further evidence. In fact,  the Legislature enacted the NJ Safe Drinking Water Act as a result of inaction and under-regulation by US EPA.

I am not aware of any NJ law that contains a provision that “specifically authorized” DEP to “exceed standards or requirements set forth by the federal government”, as provided in Section 1 of the bill.

As I read Section 1, this would prohibit DEP from filing any rule proposals  for new rules or for re-adoption of existing rules – that exceeded federal standards or requirements.

3, Last, I am unaware of any credible publicly released Report or peer reviewed evidence that support or justify the objectives of the bill, which appear to be to rollback NJ’s environmental and public health protections.

• Just what is the problem this bill seeks to fix?
• What DEP regulatory requirements are targeted?
• Why is current law federal standards analysis under Executive Order 27 (Whitman, 1994) and P.L. 1995, c. 65, not working?

Attachment 1  “Whitman Defense of Federal Standards Policy” (Source: Congressional Record: Whitman Confirmation hearing, response to environmental critics (see above link)

Response On Executive Order 27: Executive Order 27 (EO 27) stated that State agencies should consider applicable Federal standards when adopting regulations 136 that have Federal counterparts and should analyze whether existing Federal standards sufficiently protect the health of New Jersey’s citizens. When DEP determines that New Jersey needs more stringent standards, EO 27 simply requires us to explain that decision. Therefore, the Order does not prohibit DEP from adopting standards or regulations that are more stringent than their Federal counterpart and did not force DEP to weaken all existing standards in order to comply with the Order; New Jersey still has the flexibility to promulgate more stringent standards where necessary. In fact, after careful analyses, NJDEP has adopted numerous environmental standards or rules that are more stringent than EPA’s. Some examples include:

AIR

1. New Jersey’s standards for mercury emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators are more stringent than EPA’s. EPA standard is 80 ug/m3 or 85 percent control and New Jersey is 28 ug/m3 or 80 percent control. New Jersey’s standards were effective 1/1/96 whereas EPA’s just came into effect in 12/00.

2. New Jersey’s air toxics program is more comprehensive than EPA’s. New Jersey requires facilities to list air toxic emissions on their permits if they exceed a predefined threshold value. This would then potentially trigger a risk assessment by DEP or the application of a state-of-the-art standard for those air toxics. EPA on the other hand only requires air toxics to be listed on a permit if EPA has promulgated an emission standard for the particular source operation being permitted.

3. EPA does not have NOx RACT rules per se, but the NOx standards in their acid rain rules are less stringent than the NOx standards in our NOx RACT rules.

4. The stringent NOx standards for power plants in our NOx budget rules (.15 lbs/mwh) set the stage for EPA’s subsequent SIP call to 22 States.

5. Our preconstruction permitting program (Subchapter for new and modified non-major sources is more comprehensive than EPA’s. EPA’s permitting trigger is between 100 tons per year of a given pollutant whereas New Jersey’s trigger (although it’s equipment based) equates to as low as approximately one ton per year.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. New Jersey’s 10 day transfer facility requirement is more stringent than EPA’s. We have standards for how waste must be managed during the 10 day holding period and we prohibit the mixing of unlike materials. Also, transporters must tell us that they’re operating a 10-day facility and must keep logs of material entering and exiting the facility. EPA does not have these requirements.

2. New Jersey requires hazardous waste generators to submit hazardous waste manifests (shipping papers), whereas EPA does not.

3. New Jersey requires hazardous waste transporters to be licensed, whereas EPA does not.

4. New Jersey requires entities to submit plans to us for approval before they can process used oil. EPA does not. Also, our standards for halogens in used oil fuel (1000 ppm) are more stringent than EPA’s (4000 ppm).

SOLID WASTE

1. We regulate transfer stations, transporters, and recycling facilities whereas EPA does not.

2. The Solid Waste Utility Control Act requires that people engaged in the solid waste business be regulated as a utility. New Jersey’s rules therefore set forth business practices, transaction standards, competition requirements and billing practices. There is no Federal counterpart to this.

3. The Comprehensive Regulated Medical Waste Management Act sets forth registration, transportation and waste handling requirements that are in addition to the solid waste requirements. This Act was based on a Federal version which has since lapsed. We are not aware of a Federal counterpart at this time.

4. The A-901 Disclosure Review Act sets forth standard that must be met in order for an entity to engage in the business of solid waste transportation or processing/disposal. There is no Federal counterpart to this Act.

SITE REMEDIATION

1. When determining whether a site is sufficiently remediated, in most cases we are more stringent than EPA. New Jersey applies a risk factor of 1—10(-6) (increased lifetime cancer risk) to individual contaminants whereas EPA applies a risk range of 1—10(-4) to 1—10(-6) and it is based on the cumulative impact of all contaminants.

2. We regulate large non-residential heating oil underground storage tanks (greater than 2,000 gallons), whereas EPA does not.

3. New Jersey requires that only New Jersey licensed individuals perform work on Federal and state-regulated underground storage tanks. There is no corresponding Federal requirement.

4. New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act prohibits certain types of industrial properties from being sold or transferred unless they are remediated first. EPA does not have this requirement.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT

1. New Jersey’s freshwater wetlands program includes buffers in the definition of transition areas whereas EPA does not.

SAFE DRINKING WATER

1. New Jersey has 15 chemicals for which we either have more stringent standards than EPA or we have a standard whereas EPA does not. For example, for MTBE, we have a standard whereas EPA does not. Also, for trichlorethylene, New Jersey’s standard is 1 ppb, but the Federal standard is 5 ppb.

2. New Jersey has 13 drinking water standards that are more protective than Federal standards, and standards for 5 additional contaminants beyond those regulated at the Federal level.

WATER

1. New Jersey has regulations governing the construction of wastewater treatment and conveyance systems whereas EPA does not.

2. New Jersey permits all discharges to groundwater whereas EPA only permits underground injection and discharges at RCRA facilities.

3. The State law commonly known as the Clean Water Enforcement act (CWEA) has a number of provisions which are more stringent than the Federal Clean Water Act. In particular, the CWEA requires the Department or Delegated Local Agency to impose mandatory penalties for monitoring omissions or effluent violations that are serious violations or that cause the violator to become a significant non-complier.

PESTICIDES

The following pesticide initiatives/rules go beyond EPA programs and requirements Requirements for notification of the public prior to applications of pesticides so the public may take precautions to minimize exposure if deemed necessary.

1. Require commercial applicators to be licensed and certified (take exams) prior to using any pesticides, not just the more hazardous “restricted use” pesticides, as an additional protective measure. Require annual refresher training for agricultural workers.

2. Rules on applications conducted in schools in order to be protective of children, who are a vulnerable population.

3. Extensive regulations to prevent contamination, risk and exposure in homes and public buildings during structural pest control applications.

4. Regulate an additional industry sector of dealers of restricted use pesticides through licensing and record keeping requirements.

5. Require permits for aquatic pesticide applications and mosquito control applications to prevent pesticide misapplications and contamination in bodies of water and hazardous exposure during large-scale community spray programs.

RELEASE PREVENTION

1. New Jersey’s discharge prevention program is more stringent than the Federal requirements in that the State program covers a vast array of chemicals as well as petroleum and petroleum products. In addition, all plans required to be developed under New Jersey rules must be submitted to NJDEP for approval, while Federal plans are only required to be submitted for facilities with over one million gallons of storage or facilities that have a discharge. The State program inspects all regulated facilities once a year, and also inspects some non-regulated facilities whereas the Federal program inspects only a fraction of the regulated universe.

2. New Jersey’s TCPA (Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act) program is more stringent than the Federal program as follows: more covered chemicals; lower thresholds for some chemicals; more reporting requirements; and more inspections per year. Also, the State program requires a risk reduction effort after a hazard analysis is performed.

3. New Jersey’s RTK chemical inventory reporting program is more stringent than the Federal program in that employers must report regulated chemicals at a 500 pound threshold rather than the 10,000 pound Federal threshold. The State’s environmental release reporting program requires reporting at 10,000 pounds rather than the Federal 25,000 pounds. Also, the State program includes materials accounting where the Federal program does not.