WolfeNotes.com

NJ Has A Notorious Legacy Of Poisoning People Inside Their Homes

EPA Superfund Cleanup Ignores High Lead Levels Found Indoors

EPA Dismissed Blatant Environmental Justice Issues

Veteran investigative reporter Jeff Pillets of The Jersey Vindicator has a good story on the Trump EPA’s listing of East Trenton as a Superfund NPL site due to toxic lead risks, read the whole thing:

• East Trenton neighborhood to be declared a Superfund site due to lead hazards

Bill Wolfe, a former state Department of Environmental Protection official who writes a notable blog on environmental policy, pointed out that the state documented high lead levels inside East Trenton homes decades ago, yet failed to act.

He said any remediation of the historic pottery sites should now address lead wherever it’s found.

“The plan should address the inside and the outside of homes. If not, it’s fatally flawed,” Wolfe said.

As I’ve been writing for years now, back in 2005, in response to the illegal disposal of contaminated soil during the construction of the Martin Luther King, Jr. school, the DEP contracted with the Rutgers Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute to study Trenton lead exposures. That study found outrageously high levels of lead inside homes, see:

• Final Report submitted to the NJDEP On Exposure and Health Assessment within the Community Surrounding the Martin Luther King/Jefferson School Construction Site

The sophisticated Rutgers study included swipe samples of dust on the windowsills of nearby Trenton homes. The mean (average) lead level found was an astonishing 3,488 ppm, almost 10 TIMES the DEP hazardous waste site soil cleanup standard! (see the data in Table 5 on page 33).

Despite that data, this is how that Rutgers report downplayed the high lead levels found inside homes. Note that the text mentions the mean and standard deviation of the data, but does NOT mention what those numerical values actually were or how they compare to DEP’s cleanup standards, which are based on protection of human health (Importantly, indoor lead exposures are far greater than the exposure assumptions DEP used to derive that 400 ppm residential soil standard) :

One metal of particular interest because of its toxicity and that was present in the fill is lead. However, lead showed no consistency in concentration in the samples collected from the outside the homes either spatially or within the any group, as evident by the standard deviation for all but one group being larger than the mean value. The levels measured around the residences are generally higher than the levels in the soil or concrete aggregate samples on site. That, combined with the high variability suggests highly localized sources around many of the residence, most likely from old exterior leaded paint on the windows. There may also be some contribution from soil previously contaminated with leaded gasoline. This is common for an area containing pre-World War II homes of the age of this community. Thus, the transport of soil and dust from the site during construction was not a major source of lead to the community.

The primary purpose of that Rutgers study was to absolve the illegal contaminated soil disposal at the school construction site as the source of the problem. It was NOT to protect public health.

And somehow the Rutgers experts and the DEP failed to note that the homes were located nearby major historic industrial sources of lead that are the basis for the EPA Superfund listing today.

I want to make a few additional points to followup on the initial post I wrote yesterday afternoon after quickly reading the EPA press release on Superfund designation.

The East Trenton lead contamination issue opens up a Pandora’s box, and impacts Trenton residents well beyond the East Trenton neighborhood designated by EPA.

EPA’s own “Hazard Ranking Score” (HRS) documents explain why the lead contamination is broader in scope: (p.22 – 23, citations removed):

Potteries in Trenton manufactured tableware, sanitary ware, electrical porcelain, and art ceramics. Lead was used in the ceramic glazes required for the manufacture of many of these products, which were subject to high temperatures in the firing kilns.

The number of pottery kilns in Trenton increased from 1 to 258 between 1852 and 1903. Depictions of the Trenton kilns show smoke emanating from their stacks and moving with the wind; lead would have been released in these kiln emissions and then settle into the soil downwind from the kilns (the prevailing wind direction in Trenton is northwesterly, and a large majority of wind direction is distributed across the western half from northerly to southerly). Soil and debris containing ceramic pieces that was used as fill material during development of the residential neighborhoods is also adding to the lead contamination. 

EPA found lead to be one of the most leachable metals from the ceramic chips, indicating that leaching of lead from the chips over time is one of the mechanisms of soil contamination. …

Results for the Grant Intermediate School, where there are 542 students and 45 full-time faculty members, show lead concentrations more than three times above background levels in several grass- and soil-covered areas on school grounds.

The high lead levels documented inside homes by the 2006 Rutgers study are located about 1/2 mile due west, downwind of these kiln industrial emission sources. Lead contaminated soil and debris was used in their construction as well.

The takeaway points are:

• the lead contamination in Trenton is far more widespread than the East Trenton neighborhood EPA designated a Superfund site;
• there are very high lead levels INSIDE people’s homes; and
• EPA Superfund and NJ DEP toxic site cleanup programs ignore indoor exposures and risks. EPA Superfund documents  (i.e. “For the Historic Potteries site, EPA is evaluating the soil exposure and subsurface intrusion pathway—soil exposure component.” (p.23) and an EPA Press Office email to me confirm this fact.

I)  NJ Has A Notorious Legacy Of Ignored Indoor Risks

The people of NJ have suffered a series of disasters concerning exposure to toxic contamination inside their homes, daycare centers and schools.

The NJ DEP has long ignored and suppressed the risks of these exposures.

Let me share a few major disasters in that ugly legacy:

1) Hoboken Artist colony – mercury poisoning of children (early 1990’s). Read the NY Times story:

• In Hoboken, a Dream Is Poisoned by Mercury

[Residents] say the State Department of Environmental Protection declared the building free of hazardous materials after nothing more than a walk-through inspection and historical information provided by David Pascale.

But the department’s assistant commissioner for site remediation, Richard Gimello, insisted that the department complied with the law. The agency might have been looking for mercury had it done its own historical research, he said. But that is something the D.E.P., which will lay off 171 employees in the 1997 fiscal year, just cannot afford, he added.

2) Kiddie Kollege – daycare mercury poisoning of toddlers (2006). Read the NY Times expose:

• Memo Shows Agency Knew of Danger in Child Care Building

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection knew in 1994 that a building that later housed a Gloucester County day care center was so dangerous that state inspectors were instructed to use respirators when entering the building, according to an internal memo obtained by The New York Times yesterday.

But the site remained contaminated, and as far as the department knew, unoccupied, until inspectors visited it in April and found that Kiddie Kollege, a day care center serving children as young as 8 months old, was operating in the building. Yet the center, which is in Franklin Township, was allowed to remain open for more than three months, until state environmental investigators determined in late July that the site was still contaminated. …

The internal memo, dated Oct. 12, 1994, said “Level C at a minimum is required for entry into the building,” meaning respirators were required, said Bill Wolfe, a former department employee who is the director of New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group that provided a copy of the memo.

3) Jersey City chromium – again the NY Times: (6/26/89)

• Chromium and Worry Rise in Jersey City

For decades, thousands of tons of slag from three local chromium refineries were routinely used as fill in building sites and dumped in vacant lots. Now, years later, the highly toxic wastes have seeped through some building walls and leached up to ground level. …

Some Jersey City officials, particularly the chief health officer, Lou M. Manzo, believe the state has been slow to react to the problem, particularly at the school. On May 16, Mr. Manzo ordered the school, Whitney Young, closed and its 1,100 students transferred to another school after state air sampling found elevated chromium readings in its basement.

”The state could not give me any conclusive proof that the contamination wasn’t in upper floors,” Mr. Manzo said.

Potentially, tens of thousands of Hudson County residents face health risks from the chemical, hexavalent chromium, state health officials say.

4) Garfield chromium

5) Jersey City – 9th street firehouse: (#96 of 212)

6) Vapor intrusion – thousands of homes, schools and daycare centers were found to have toxic indoor air levels from nearby contaminated sites. Vapor intrusion blurs the scientific and regulatory lines between indoor and outdoor exposure.

• NJ Closing Its Nose To Vapor Intrusion Crisis

Vapor Intrusion Rules Cast into Regulatory Limbo as Horror Stories Multiply

Trenton — Rules seeking to accelerate indoor air sampling and provide more rapid response to toxic vapors seeping into homes, day-care centers and other buildings were recently set aside by New Jersey authorities and the new administration of Governor Chris Christie has pledged to kill them altogether, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). This regulatory gap occurs as new evidence shows even more widespread contamination of groundwater and soil than previously thought and as the state moves to pick of the pace of “brownfields” redevelopment of contaminated sites.

II)  EPA Knows The Problem Is Not Limited To East Trenton And Is Not Cleaning Up The Superfund Site

EPA’s own documents state that contaminated properties were excluded from the East Trenton Area designated. EPA also openly admits that they are not cleaning up the site:

Exclusion of properties from scoring does not indicate an absence of contamination—properties excluded from scoring include properties with soil lead concentrations equal to or greater than the RML of 200 mg/kg but below three times background levels, and properties that have not yet been sampled. Soil removals have not been performed and are not scheduled for the properties scored as subject to observed contamination within the AOC. EPA is installing temporary, protective cover materials at the Grant Intermediate School as an emergency measure. This interim action does not include removal of contaminated soil from the property, and the cover materials are permeable and less than 2 feet thick (i.e., topsoil, sod, and mulch) and do not represent a permanent cleanup solution.

Did you catch that? No cleanup. No commitment from EPA to do anything (other than provide “raised be gardens”).

III)  EPA Completely Dismissed Environmental Justice Issues

The East Trenton neighborhood designated by EPA has a high concentration of disadvantaged poor and minority populations. The DEP also designated Trenton as an environmental justice community under NJ’s environmental justice law (a legal fact that EPA is required to consider).

But EPA flat out dismissed environmental justice issues – worse, EPA said the Superfund NPL listing was basically meaningless. Here the text of the official Federal Register Notice: (9/5/24)

“J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. 

And this was the Biden EPA, who claimed to support environmental justice and had an EJ policy (all since repealed by Trump’s Executive Order on “DEI”).

So, there you go.

There’s no viable responsible party for EPA to sue and pay for the cleanup, the federal Superfund is already spoken for and broke, and there is no funding appropriated by Congress for any cleanup.

This is all a manipulative and cynical show and a continuation of the legacy noted above.

EPA and DEP have learned nothing from NJ’s notorious legacy and are in fact repeating exactly the same errors.

NJ DEP Found Incredibly High Lead Levels Inside Trenton Homes 20 Years Ago And Did Nothing

Massive Coverup Of Indoor Lead Exposure Continues

The Trump EPA issued a press release today announcing a proposed Superfund National Priorities Listing of “HISTORIC POTTERIES LEAD CONTAMINATION” sites in Trenton, NJ:

• EPA Adds Historic Potteries Site in Trenton to Superfund National Priorities List

Trenton, N.J. (July 7, 2025) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adding the Historic Potteries site in Trenton, New Jersey, to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) — a critical step that will advance long-term efforts to clean up legacy lead contamination affecting homes, parks, and public spaces across the neighborhood.

[Correction: This is a Biden EPA action. According to the September 5, 2024 Federal Register Notice:

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted on or before November 4, 2024. ~~~ end]

Relatedly, I recently rehashed a 2005 scandal about lead contamination in Trenton involving exposure to lead inside homes (see this December 9, 2024 post).

NJ DEP found incredibly high levels of lead in dust swipes of indoor window sills (3,488 ppm, mean), but downplayed the issue and did nothing to inform the residents or cleanup the contamination! (The levels were 10 TIMES higher than DEP’s hazardous waste site residential soil cleanup standard, which is 400 ppm. Wonks can see and confirm the data in Table 5 on page 33 of a DEP study).

So, I checked the EPA NPL listing documents to see whether and how they were considering current levels of indoor lead and what those levels are.

Apparently – and I have not read the complete Superfund file – EPA is only sampling outdoor soil levels, not indoor dust levels: (EPA document)

Lead Testing at Residential Properties

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is testing high-risk residential properties in the East Trenton neighborhood in Trenton, New Jersey to determine if they have high levels of lead that would make them eligible for a temporary action.

High-risk properties include those where children or pregnant women live or where people garden regularly. These temporary actions would include either placing a temporary cover over the contaminated soil or providing residents with raised garden beds.

If the EPA finds that there is a risk to residents from the lead in soil at a property, and if that lead contamination came from the former pottery facilities, the EPA will discuss with individual residents a plan to protect them from the lead contamination. …

EPA’s Work to Address Contamination

After finding elevated levels of lead in the soil, the EPA took action to address contamination at properties in East Trenton where community members are most vulnerable to lead contamination.

At residential properties where children under the age of seven, pregnant women, or gardeners use their yard, the EPA worked with residents to install raised garden beds and temporary covers to prevent contact with contaminated soil.

I made the EPA press office and Superfund team aware of this 2005 DEP study.

I asked for data on indoor dust swipe sampling.

I smell another coverup and a low cost token EPA gesture (i.e the raised garden beds).

We’ll keep you posted – this is a breaking story and I’ve not confirmed the omission of indoor lead exposures by reading all the EPA NPL documents, and I doubt EPA press office or experts will get back to me.

[Update – EPA Region 2 press office confirmed the fatal flaw. EPA is NOT considering indoor lead exposures:

———- Original Message ———-

From: “Vega, Carlos” <Vega.Carlos@epa.gov>

To: Bill WOLFE <>

Date: 07/07/2025 4:51 PM EDT

Subject: RE: HISTORIC POTTERIES TRENTON, NJ

Yes that is correct Bill.

From: Bill WOLFE <>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Vega, Carlos <Vega.Carlos@epa.gov>
Subject: RE: HISTORIC POTTERIES TRENTON, NJ

Carlos – I read some of the EPA NPL documents and it looks like the EPA sampling and remediation are limited to OUTDOOR SOIL LEAD, and do not consider INDOOR DUST SAMPLES.

Is that correct?

end update]

Christian Camp Located On Banks Of River In “Flash Flood Alley”

“A History Of Monstrous And Devastating Flash Floods”

“It’s all about personal accountability. You’re responsible for your own life, your family’s life, the lives of your children.”~~~ Dub Thomas, Emergency Management Coordinator, Kerr County Texas (at time 4:40)

“Whether you are at a home you have lived in your entire life, or at a vacation cottage, understanding your flood risk and being connected to emergency warnings is essential” (@ time 5:35)

“Our area has a history of monstrous and devastating flash floods”

“Visitors to our area are particularly vulnerable to being caught unprepared for flash flooding because they are not connected to local emergency warning programs, like Kerr County’s Code Red.”

“If you own property in Kerr County you can be a part of Code Red.”

[Update: 7/7/25 – The NY Times finally gets the story right by focusing on Kerr County Emergency Management failures, but they make it a cost issue, not an ideological issue:

• Officials Feared Flood Risk to Youth Camps but Rejected Warning System

Rural Kerr County can’t afford a flood warning system in “Flash Flood Alley”? After deadly floods in 1978 and 1987? And they still won’t after this flood? WTF?How much do they spend on Church construction and maintenance? Pro life? ~~~ end update]

No doubt, there is already a lot of finger pointing going on after the deadly flash floods in Central Texas.

Texas officials are pointing fingers at the National Weather Service for allegedly inaccurate forecasts and lack of timely warnings.

Many are pointing fingers at Trump’s budget and personnel cuts to the National Weather Service and NOAA who provide the science and monitoring networks relied on to produce accurate forecasts.

Some are highlighting climate change and extreme weather for the heavy rainfall that produced the flood.

None of these claims accurately focuses on the real underlying causes.

The region impacted by the floods is known as “flash flood alley“:

The Colorado River flows through the Texas Hill Country, an area known as “Flash Flood Alley’’ because it has one of the greatest risks for flash floods in the United States. The region is prone to flash floods because of its steep terrain, shallow soil and unusually high rainfall rates. …~~~ (“Managing Floods In Flash Flood Alley”)

Flash floods regularly occur there, particularly along the Guadalupe River.

Watch this video “Be Flood Aware” to get a clear scientific understanding of why the region is so prone to flash floods. It was prepared by the Kerr County, Texas Office of Emergency Management. Each County Emergency Management Plan is supervised by the State Office and submitted to FEMA as a condition of receiving FEMA disaster assistance funds.

But you’ll get a lot more than scientific information in that video.

You will get a government philosophy: you’re on your own (the County video makes that abundantly clear):

The camp where many children died was located on the banks of the highly flash flood prone Guadalupe River – take look:

The camp should never have been allowed to locate and operate there.

But because it has operated for decades, the camp owners – a mom and pop operation – should have been required to have special flash flood warning technology and management programs in place:

Trump EPA Administrator Zeldin Suspends 144 EPA Professionals For Criticizing Trump’s Lawless Lies

Case Illustrates Exactly Why Trump Picked Unqualified Head of The Office Of Special Counsel

For Independence Day this year, I had planned to do a Trump annotated version of the Declaration of Independence – which I still may do – but this story caught my eye.

Last week (June 30), 278 EPA employees released a letter to EPA Administrator Zeldin that blasted Trump’s blatant and false attacks on science, law, regulations that protect public health the environment, and EPA as an institution.

(As a former NJ DEP environmental professional and whistleblower, I signed on in support. I even wrote to the group to urge them to sharpen their rhetoric; call out Zeldin for lies in his Senate confirmation testimony where he pledged to follow law, honor science, and uphold the Endangerment Finding; and beef up the substance with more specific examples of science and regulatory rollbacks).

Blatantly violating whistleblower law and Constitutional free speech protections, Zeldin promptly moved to fire them. They were suspended and are under “investigation”, a move right out of Stalin’s play book. I’m sure Zeldin and Trump would love to deport them to some Gulag, or rendition them to “Alligator Alcatraz” without Due Process.

The NY Times is following the story and reported today:

• E.P.A. Suspends 144 Employees After They Signed a Letter Criticizing Trump

As former Director of the New Jersey State Chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, I was pleased to read this quote:

Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group that defends the rights of civil servants, said the Constitution generally protects the speech of federal workers. “We believe strongly that these federal employees have First Amendment rights,” he said.

The letter was addresses to EPA Administrator Zeldin and was a classic form of whistleblowing that is protected by federal whistleblower laws and the 1st Amendment, as upheld by federal courts:

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA or the Act) protects most federal civil service employees who disclose government illegality, waste, and corruption from adverse personnel actions. The WPA, which amended the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, prohibits retaliation against federal employees who act as whistleblowers. The WPA was amended by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act in 2012.

The employment retaliation protections of the WPA are available only when certain elements are satisfied. To trigger the application of the protections, an individual must be a covered employee under the Act, the covered employee must make a protected disclosure, and a personnel action must have been taken because of that protected disclosure.

The EPA’s response to the letter was classic retaliation which is prohibited by whistleblower laws and the Constitution, as upheld by federal courts:

In general, the WPA covers current employees, former employees, and applicants for employment to positions in the executive branch of the government. The WPA protects a disclosure of information that a covered employee reasonably believes evidences behavior of “a violation of any law, rule, or regulation” or “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” The WPA prohibits employees with authority over government personnel from retaliating against a whistleblower by taking, failing to take, or threatening to take a personnel action, including a decision regarding a promotion, pay or benefits, removal, suspension, or any other significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions, among other actions.

(read the leading Supreme Court case: Pickering v. Board of Education).

But the whistleblower protections are investigated and enforced by the Office of Special Counsel

Whistleblower retaliation is a prohibited personnel practice that is investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC or Special Counsel). Individuals may bring an allegation that a personnel action has been taken in retaliation for whistleblowing to OSC for investigation. If the Special Counsel finds evidence of whistleblower retaliation prohibited by the WPA, the findings of the investigation and recommendations are reported to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) and to the agency that engaged in the prohibited personnel practice. OSC may further petition the MSPB for corrective action if the agency fails to correct it on its own.

And that is why Trump appointed a loyalist, incompetent political hack to head the Office Of Special Counsel – to avoid any investigations of wrongdoing by his Regime:

• Trump Nominates a Former Far-Right Podcast Host to Head an Ethics Watchdog

This is just another example of how the Trump regime is lawless and dangerous to the people and the planet.

Trump must go, now!

EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History

DEP Claims Technical State Permit Requirement Can Over-Ride a Presidential Exemption

The Murphy DEP just denied a petition for rulemaking that was designed to block Trump EPA clean air rollbacks for polluters that emit “hazardous air pollutants” (HAPs).

This is a complex wonky issue, so if you don’t care to drill down into the regulatory weeds, just hit delete now.

The Murphy DEP once again failed to act to prevent Trump environmental regulatory rollbacks.

DEP is risking litigation they are likely to lose, instead of simply adopting explicit enforceable regulations to block likely Trump EPA clean air rollbacks.

The regulatory issues at play are extremely complex and novel, a reality that suggests that the best approach is for DEP to act aggressively and with precision by openly adopting a regulatory strategy that is explicitly designed to prevent Trump EPA rollbacks.

But instead of simply doing that, the DEP is relying on vague and esoteric DEP technical air pollution permit requirements.

These narrow DEP requirements conflict with Trump Executive Orders, Trump’s broad Presidential “national security” powers, the federal Clean Air Act, and EPA federal regulations (see: “Clean Air Act Section 112 Presidential Exemptions”)

If Trump’s EPA were to issue an exemption to a big lawyered up corporate polluter and DEP sought to enforce the DEP’s narrow technical permit requirements, who do you think would prevail if those conflicts were litigated?

The federal Clean Air Act grants the President exceptional power to unilaterally issue certain exemptions from clean air requirements. Trump is the first President to use those powers.

Setting up a conflict between federal and State power, the federal Clean Air Act also authorizes States to adopt stricter State standards. NJ has adopted some stricter State standards under both the federal Clean Air Act and the State NJ Air Pollution Control Act.

We’ve already seen how the federal Courts have largely deferred to Trump’s Executive Orders that involve his powers over the federal government, under the so called “Unitary Executive” theory.

We’ve already seen one example of that Clean Air Act federal versus state conflict in the recent California EV car EPA waiver, where Trump Executive Order and followed later by Congress stripped more stringent California electric vehicle requirements.

We’ve also seen how Trump can abuse his emergency powers in declaring an emergency on the PJM grid that allowed a dirty fossil polluter on the NJ border to continue to operate.

So, the writing is on the wall and it is likely that in a case of conflict between a Trump exercise of Presidential Executive exemption power and a technical State regulation, that Trump and EPA will prevail.

One way to block Trump EPA rollbacks is not to rely on reactions to EPA rollbacks and individual case specific lawsuits, but instead to get out front and adopt clear State laws and regulations explicitly designed to prevent Trump EPA rollbacks.

That’s why on March 28, 2025 I filed a formal petition for rulemaking which was published in the NJ Register on May 5, 2025, see: 57 N.J.R. 951(a) (for some strange reason that Public Notice of the petition has been taken down!)

At the time, I wrote to explain why I filed the petition: (read the complete post, which includes the petition text)

I filed a petition for rulemaking to force DEP to respond (provided below). The petition seeks to have DEP and/or the Attorney General (or even Governor) take regulatory action to block the Trump EPA from rolling back critical Clean Air Act protections in New Jersey, including industrial emissions of toxic hazardous air pollutants linked to cancer and other illness.

The Murphy DEP will now have to respond officially, in writing, published in the NJ Register, on their detailed legal, scientific, and regulatory policy positions on Trump Clean Air rollbacks.

To date, the Murphy Administration has completely ignored Project 2025 and relied on after the fact individual lawsuits filed by the Attorney General to respond to Trump’s numerous Executive Orders and EPA regulatory moves that openly attack critical environmental and public health protections.

As I wrote on March 18 (see: A Handful Of Lawsuits Will Not Protect NJ’s Environment And Public Health), individual case by case lawsuits will not stop Trump’s attack on environmental protections. Lawsuits are reactive, slow, and even if successful provide very narrow victories. They also fail to involve the public. No need to take my word for all that, read this excellent Washington Post Op-Ed by law professors from Harvard and Yale (published on March 20) who agree with me:

• Giving courts the last word is part of what got us into this mess. It won’t get us out.

The DEP denied this petition. The DEP denial will be published in the upcoming July 7, 2025 NJ Register.

The DEP completely missed the point of the petition.

The whole point was to PREVENT EPA rollbacks by getting out front of them, not by waiting to react to them and relying on individual risky lawsuits that lack any public involvement.

Furthermore, DEP claimed that no exemptions had yet been issued in NJ and that I had failed to identify specific facilities, which again missed the whole point.

First, because there are major HAP industrial emission sources in NJ that could be issued exemptions. NJ Spotlight recently reported that there were over 1,800 industrial HAP polluters nationally, and approximately 39 in NJ:

The bill on Trump’s desk would allow an estimated 39 facilities in New Jersey to increase pollution, said Walke, who worked as an attorney in EPA’s general counsel office.

Second, because DEP knows exactly what NJ facilities emit HAP’s and are eligible for exemptions, and it is not my burden to list individual 39 HAP emission sources in NJ.

Third, because NJ’s air quality and public health are impacted by some of those 1,800 upwind out of state industrial HAP polluters. Historically, DEP has sued those pollution sources to protect NJ’s air quality. The head in the sand approach that DEP took in denying the petition betrays that history.

The DEP denied the petition on the following basis:

Response to Petition

The petitioner requests that the Department promulgate rules to incorporate by reference the EPA Rules and rules to disregard any permit or related exemptions issued by the EPA pursuant to section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act. The petitioner claims that the Federal exemption program would exempt many air pollution sources in the State from the EPA Rules, which would threaten public health in the State. However, the petitioner failed to identify any stationary sources in the State that were purportedly granted a Federal exemption and the petitioner provides no other specific support for this claim.

The Department is aware of no purported Federal exemption affecting stationary sources in the State. However, even assuming that a Federal exemption had been granted, the Department’s State rules independently require major sources of air pollution to evaluate facility-wide risk. As explained below, even if a Federal exemption were at issue, public and environmental health would be protected by application of the Department’s existing rules. The requested rulemaking is not necessary to achieve these protective ends.

The DEP’s assertion of so called NJ State “facility-wide risk assessment” permit requirements is a very thin reed to rely on to respond to the massive Trump assault.

In fact, the so called “requirements” DEP relies on are actually not even in regulation, they are in Guidance, as DEP admits in the denial document:

If an application includes HAP emissions above the applicable reporting threshold, the facility must demonstrate negligible risk, using the Department’s risk screening worksheet or by conducting air dispersion modeling in accordance with the Department’s technical guidance. See N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.5 and 22.8.

And it will no doubt fail.

The Murphy DEP’s weak knee’d failure to respond to Trump Executive Orders and Trump EPA publicly announced upcoming regulatory rollbacks is highly irresponsible.

The DEP has failed to adopt any strategy other than to sit back and enjoy getting screwed by Trump. And that is just what the polluters want.

In case you somehow missed all that, see:

• EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History

Administrator Zeldin Announces 31 Historic Actions to Power the Great American Comeback