DEP Cancer Risk Methods Ignore Environmental Justice And Cumulative Exposure Risks
6. The [cancer risk screening] methodology fails to consider disproportionate community burdens and exposures. The methodology fails to incorporate community vulnerability and susceptibility or otherwise incorporate the standards and policies of the Environmental Justice law or DEP’s proposed environmental justice regulations.
The DEP today adopted final “Revised Risk Screening Worksheet for Long-Term Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Effects and Short-Term Effects”.
The DEP uses these risk screening methods in various environmental regulatory programs – including air permits – so they have a huge impact on how much pollution is allowed to be emitted and public health.
DEP allows polluters to apply these methods, including in overburdened environmental justice communities. But the methods ignore EJ issues entirely.
[Note: the “methods” I refer to include a broad array of techniques, from risk screening, to risk assessment, to air quality monitoring, to air quality modeling, to the definitions of “sensitive receptors” and “health endpoints”, to regulatory risk mitigation measures (e.g. increasing the stack height of the pollution emission source was discredited 50 years ago, and brought us such air pollution problems as long range transport, acid rain, and mercury in fish and wildlife. It is bizarre that such engineering insanity is still embedded in DEP’s air pollution control permit program and that DEP is not even challenged to defend it and allowed to ignore criticism of it.]
I wrote about that when DEP proposed the changes on November 3, 2022:
The regulated chemical industry supported DEP’s revisions, which weakened the current methods, which were criticized by industry as “too stringent”.
The DEP is required by law to accurately present and respond to pubic comment on their regulatory actions.
Here is the DEP’s “Response To Public Comments Document”.
There were 3 public commenters who DEP claimed submitted 4 comments.
As you can see, the DEP provided extensive and accurate summaries of the chemical industry comments that supported the DEP rollback.
Did you get that? Let me repeat: DEP provided elaborate and accurate summaries of industry comments that praised DEP’s rollback of health screening methods.
On November 3, 2022, I submitted detailed critical comments on DEP’s proposed revisions.
(I also provided my comments to Sierra Club’s new Director, a former DEP air pollution “expert” and requested that Sierra submit comments to DEP, which they failed to do. The next time Sierra Club talks about “environmental justice”, ask them why they failed to criticize DEP’s methods which completely ignore EJ.)
Here is how DEP presented my criticism:
COMMENT: The Department’s approach to risk assessment, including the Risk Screening worksheet, the risk assessment methodology, and risk reduction requirements, is flawed. (3)
That’s it. DEP claimed my comments merely claimed that the Department’s “approach” was “flawed”.
DEP not only completely ignored and failed to respond to the substance of my comments, they failed to even summarize them so the public could read them!
That does a grave disservice to the public, by masking important substantive science and regulatory policy issues. It also violates the Department’s obligations under the NJ Administrative Procedures Act and principles of administrative law. The Department is betraying its public trust and legal obligations to be transparent and responsive to public comments.
This is an outrageous and totally unacceptable regulatory practice.
Here are my comments, which show that DEP intentionally suppressed valid science and law based criticisms:
———- Original Message ———-
From: Bill WOLFE <@comcast.net>
To: “NJDEP-BAQP@dep.nj.gov” <NJDEP-BAQP@dep.nj.gov>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, Robert Hennelly <rhennelly55@gmail.com>
Date: 11/03/2022 12:12 PM MST
Subject: Comment – Draft Risk Screening Worksheet
Dear DEP – please accept the following comment on the DEP’s draft Risk Screening Worksheet for carcinogenic and non carcinogenic compounds:
1. Increasing stack height and relocation of the emission source should not be considered acceptable risk reduction measures. Pollution prevention followed by SOTA/MACT technology must be enforced, not these false solutions.
2. The Pollution Prevention Act authorized the DEP to enforce Pollution Prevention Plans in DEP air permits. The DEP has failed to implement that authority. DEP must begin to enforce PP plans in air permits. The risk screening process can become an opportunity to do so, yet it fails to do so.
3. The permit applicant should not be allowed to conduct a “Refined Risk Assessment”. That analysis should be conducted only by the DEP professionals, who are objective and do not have a profit driven motive to manipulate the analysis.
4. The spreadsheet is not user friendly and it is virtually impossible for the lay public to understand it or use it or comment on it.
5. The entire risk screening and risk assessment methodology fails to incorporate cumulative risks associated with multiple chemicals, multiple exposure pathways, and synergistic effects.
6. The methodology fails to consider disproportionate community burdens and exposures. The methodology fails to incorporate community vulnerability and susceptibility or otherwise incorporate the standards and policies of the Environmental Justice law or DEP’s proposed environmental justice regulations.
7. The DEP’s risk “standards” do not include mandatory risk reduction requirements or a basis for DEP permit denial when risks exceed “acceptable risk” levels.
8. The proposal appears to be reliant on modeling and fence line air quality and contaminant monitoring, as opposed to actual levels of exposure at the site of sensitive receptors.
9. The applicability of the risk screening methodology is extremely narrow – limited pollutants and sources. Only major sources of hazardous air pollution and certain other limited sources are required to conduct the risk screening. It should be applied far more broadly to all emissions and there need to be mandatory risk reduction measures to implement the risk findings.
The above are major policy, regulatory, and scientific flaws that must be addressed.
Respectfully,
Bill Wolfe