DEP Hides Inaction Behind Vague Public Health Alerts
DEP Buries Public Criticism In Appendix 3
Wildland fire, which encompass both wildfire and prescribed fire, accounts for over 30% of emissions of primary PM2.5emissions (U.S. EPA, 2021). ~~~ cited by Wolfenotes 2/10/23
I came across the above DEP air quality alert on fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) from wildfire smoke yesterday on my Twitter feed (this DEP Commisisoner loves to Tweet!). My spin detection meter was immediately triggered.
In response, as usual, the NJ media again uncritically transcribed the DEP spin – and with absolutely no mention of the climate emergency (see today’s coverage:
I’ve been criticizing DEP’s flawed policies and inadequate responses to wildfire, forestry, climate, and air quality issues for some time now.
All those issues have become front burner issues (excuse the bad taste pun) given record extreme heat and widespread wildfires and choking unhealthy wildfire smoke.
In that vein, last week, I filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) for DEP and EPA documents on DEP’s recently submitted Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP) for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). See this for flaws in that SIP:
In curious timing, DEP finally replied to my OPRA request today (not coincidentally giving the DEP Press Office the jump and time to frame the issue and control the narrative in today’s media).
The DEP reply is revealing.
[Update: a friendly reader just sent me this YouTube video clip of a “disturbance in the kitchen”. It perfectly captures DEP’s bureaucratic non-responsive response!]
The DEP’s own replies to public comments submitted by Steve Fenichel, MD, a medical doctor, and myself expose significant public health risks and inadequate DEP regulatory action.
As usual, DEP buried the responses to public comments at the end of the SIP document in Appendix 3. My OPRA forced DEP to disclose that clearly:
2) public comments and DEP’s response to public comments on the January 2023 version:
Public Comments and Responses are in Appendix 3: Public Participation: appendix-3-pm2.5-sip-comments-response-7-6-23.pdf (nj.gov)
I urge readers to hit this link and read the issues raised and the DEP’s lame replies.
Here’s a taste of the important issues raised in a comment by Steve Fenichel, MD
As a physician who has lived and practiced medicine in the state of NJ for over 40 years, I am very concerned about the inadequate clean air standards in our state. This recently proposed amendment to NJ’s Clean Air Act falls short and should be much more stringent for the sake of the health of all our citizens. The federal EPA has proposed a revision, January 6, 2023, based on more recent science than used by NJDEP. EPA proposes the revision of “particulate matter” pollution standard from its present 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to within the 9.0 – 10.0 micrograms/cubic meter. “These are particles that can either be directly emitted into the air (primary PM) or be formed in the atmosphere from gaseous precursors such as sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (secondary particles”). (WHO, 2013)
These airborne particles are especially damaging to health as they are inhaled deep into the lungs, with the ultrafine ones able to get into the blood stream and circulate throughout the body. According to the American Lung Association, “Anyone who lives where particle pollution levels are high is at risk. Some people face higher risk, however. People at the greatest risk from particle pollution exposure include:
- Infants, children, and teens;
- People with lung disease, especially asthma, but also people with chronic
- obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD);
- People with cardiovascular disease;
- People of color;
- Current or former smokers;
- People with low incomes;
- People who are obese.
This amendment is out of date, and completely inadequate given the gravity of the adverse health effects, and the present level of pollutants. The highest standard of measuring, monitoring, and mitigation of the causes of this deadly particulate matter pollution should be employed by the state. More time is needed to gather the most recent science in order for an informed decision to be made by the NJDEP. Postpone the decision until a full and comprehensive Public Hearing can take place, and the science to be employed is the most UpToDate.
It makes no sense for DEP to continue to work on, implement, and propose- and for EPA to allow NJ to continue with – this “maintenance” plan based on the old NAAQS standard, when new science has emerged, and EPA has just proposed new NAAQS that will result in a downward revision of the old existing NAAQS.
This is even more problematic in light of huge changes in policy and law, like NJ environmental justice law that regulates health “stressors” including but not limited to PM 2.5.
The “maintenance” plan concept makes no sense under these conditions. (SF)
In response to failure to consider the air pollution and health impacts of prescribed burns, DEP was forced to admit this:
There are no SIP required emission caps for prescribed burns.
In response to public comments and criticism of a failure to address the “urban heat island” effect, DEP was forced to admit that they rely on small bore and ineffective grant (not regulatory) programs:
NJ DEP is involved in initiatives that mitigate the impacts of the Urban Heat Island Effect. In January 2023, the NJDEP awarded the New Jersey Conservation Foundation with $1.3 million for their Throwin’ Shade: Greening the Capital City grant application, which will plant 1,000 trees throughout Trenton’s streets. Trees will be planted as part of NJDEP’s Natural Climate Solutions Grant Program. This project will sequester carbon, increase the urban tree canopy, and mitigate the urban heat-island effect, stormwater runoff, and poor water and air quality in Trenton.
Additionally, on March 21, 2022 NJDEP awarded 38 grants to promote the stewardship of urban and community trees and forests throughout New Jersey. The grants support Gov. Murphy’s environmental justice initiatives in vulnerable neighborhoods, with 75 percent of the funds awarded to municipalities with at least one overburdened community. Municipalities receiving grants in this category use funding to increase their urban canopy, increase the ecological services of their urban and community forest, and provide a cooler place to live.
There are several other controversial issues regarding: 1) monitoring, 2) impacts on EJ communities, 3) the climate emergency, 4) failure to fully quantify growing pollution emissions from new highway expansions, all pollution sources, and economic growth,, and 5) failure to mandate stricter pollution control measures, including those of the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
But you won’t read any of that criticism in the NJ media or from NJ environmental groups, who have become Murphy DEP cheerleaders, not DEP watchdogs.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any of that.