Murphy DEP Petitioned To Adopt Biden EPA Proposal
Will DEP Walk The Talk On “Forever Chemicals”?
Or Will Chemical Industry Block Protections?
One of the many environmental regulations killed by the Trump barrage of Executive Orders was an important Biden EPA proposed rule to limit the chemical industry’s discharge of toxic “forever chemicals” into our rivers and streams and drinking water.
The proposal was technically known as:
The Biden EPA proposed that regulation back in March of 2021, but could not get the proposal across the finish line before Trump took Office. For the full story, read this excellent piece by the Environmental Working Group:
We provide warnings, but we also propose solutions.
In February, I wrote to urge DEP Commissioner LaTourette to simply propose and adopt the Biden EPA proposal as a NJ DEP State regulation.
I threatened to file another petition for rulemaking to force DEP to act, but because slogging through by individual rule – by rule petitions is not feasible, I suggested a broader strategy and easier path:
A comprehensive NJ DEP regulatory strategy could be one way to defend against the Trump EPA rollbacks and protect the public health and environment of NJ.
I urge your immediate efforts along these lines and appreciate your timely and favorable reply.
Perhaps we can forgo the work of drafting and DEP response to a petition for rulemaking.
The Commissioner (and Senate Democrats) failed to have the professional courtesy to reply.
So today, I filed another petition for rulemaking to DEP (see text below).
DEP always denies these petitions, and typically claims that they lack sufficient monitoring data and science to support a regulatory proposal and that it will take several years to collect that data. Sometimes they claim they lack legislative authority to regulate.
But they can’t claim those excuses on this one, because the Biden EPA collected the data and assembled the science to support a rule proposal. DEP could simply cite all that EPA technical work to support a NJ DEP regulatory proposal.
DEP’s clean water regulations have always been more stringent than EPA’s minimum national regulations, so all we are asking for is that they at least adopt the Biden EPA federal minimums. So this is not a heavy left.
To their credit, DEP has done a lot of scientific and regulatory work on “forever chemicals”, but that has come with a lot of over the top self promoting press releases.
So, let’s see if Commissioner LaTourette will walk the talk – I’m giving 10 – 1 odds he won’t. Here it is, come and get it: (please excuse the font errors)
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING – Submitted VIA EMAIL
This petition for rulemaking is submitted in accordance with the NJ Administrative Procedure Act and in substantial compliance with NJAC 7:1D-1 PETITIONS FOR RULES
April 10, 2025
Shawn LaTourette, Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
P.O. Box 402
Re: Petition for Rule making
Petition for DEP to adopt emergency rules and/or regulations to incorporate US EPA’s proposed “Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for PFAS Manufacturers Under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category” (March 17, 2021) in NJPDES regulations NJAC 7:14-1 et seq and SWQS regulations NJAC 7:9B-1 et seq
The scope of this petition applies to the following EPA proposed regulations (hereafter “subject regulations“):
ANPR – Federal Register Notice
ANPR – Federal Register Proposal
Dear Commissioner LaTourette:
Please accept this letter petition for rulemaking pursuant to N.J.S.A.52:14B-1 et seq.
This letter petition is filed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4, which provides that:
“(f) An interested person may petition an agency to adopt a new rule, or amend or repeal any existing rule. Each agency shall prescribe by rule the form for the petition and the procedure for the submission, consideration and disposition of the petition. The petition shall state clearly and concisely:
(1) The substance or nature of the rule-making which is requested;
(2) The reasons for the request and the petitioner’s interest in the request;
(3) References to the authority of the agency to take the requested action.”
I) Rule-Making requested and the petitioner’s interest in it
I submit this petition to advance the public interest, to protect human health and the environment, and to promote compliance with applicable laws and regulations and government accountability. I am a former professional at DEP (14 years), served for 7 years as Policy Director of the NJ Chapter of Sierra Club, and for 10 years as Director of NJ Chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The petition seeks to incorporate the subject proposed US EPA rules, which apparently have been withdrawn prior to adoption by President Trump’s Executive Order and Office Of Management And Budget (OMB).
II) Rationale for the request
The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has done significant scientific and regulatory work on PFAS, PFOA, PFNA, and the related class of compounds known as “forever chemicals”, see:
While the DEP has adopted some regulatory standards for these chemicals and begun assessments of wastewater, the DEP has not adopted effluent limitations, treatment and pre-treatment requirements, monitoring requirements, and comprehensive surface water quality standards and implementation procedures for water pollution discharges of these chemicals, which are regulated under the NJ Water Pollution Control Act and federal Clean Water Act.
I incorporate the entire body of that scientific and regulatory work into this petition by reference, see:
The US EPA has proposed such rules (see the “subject rules” proposal, 3/17/21
According to news reports, apparently, the Trump Whitehouse, OMB, or EPA withdrew a pending EPA rule proposal on pollution monitoring and discharge limits for “forever chemicals” PFAS. (see this Statement by the Environmental Working Group:
It is my understanding that the NJ DEP has State statutory authority pursuant to the NJ Water Pollution Control Act to propose and adopt regulations establishing ambient surface water quality standards (including anti-degradation policies and implementation procedures), groundwater quality standards, and mandatory discharge monitoring, pollution treatment and pre-treatment, and numeric effluent limits (technology and water quality based).
The subject regulations were proposed by US EPA based on science and law in order to protect the public health, environment, and welfare from water pollution, including the discharge of “forever chemicals”.
I hereby incorporate by reference into this petition the US EPA basis and background documents, scientific basis, and administrative records for the subject proposed rules, see
I urge the DEP to rely on these documents as the basis for proposal and adoption of NJ State regulations.
Given all the prior work by the NJ DEP, DEP experts could readily assemble the EPA basis and background documents used in support of the EPA ANPR and draft a NJ rule proposal, and publish that as the basis for NJ State NJPDES monitoring, treatment, and NJPDES discharge permit requirements.
The EPA proposed subject rules would have applied to water pollution sources in NJ.
In the subject proposed rules, EPA identified six facilities (Alabama, North Carolina, West Virginia, New Jersey, Illinois) in the United States that currently manufacture PFAS compounds and have an associated wastewater discharge.
In the subject proposed rules, EPA identified limited publicly available information regarding the universe of PFAS formulators. To date, EPA identified ten facilities (in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) that are potential formulators, but requests additional details regarding formulator facilities.
EPA’s withdrawal and failure to adopt the subject rules creates unacceptable risks to public health and environment in NJ.
The DEP must act in order to prevent the harms that would result from EPA’s withdrawal of the subject rules.
Additionally, the EPA’s withdrawal of the proposed subject rules is, at best, an abuse of authority under the Clean Water Act. It contradicts the best available science and EPA’s own scientific and regulatory findings relied on to support adoption of the subject rules, and is thus arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The EPA’s decision to withdraw the proposed rues was based on Trump’s Executive Order, a decision that provided no public participation, and thus violates the public’s due process rights.
III) Authority of the agency to take the requested action
The DEP has authority and responsibility to protect water quality and prevent these harms pursuant to the NJ Water Pollution Control Act and DEP’s organic authority, NJSA 13:1D et seq. The Department also is authorized to adopt the requested regulations pursuant to NJSA 13:1B-1 et seq.
We look forward to your timely and favorable consideration of this petition request. We reserve the right to revise and extend this submission.
Sincerely,
Bill Wolfe
Citizen
