WolfeNotes.com

Murphy DEP Ignores Risks Of Chemical Fires, As They Exaggerate Pinelands Wildfire Risks

(Courtesy Twitter user @bergonfire ) (sic)

The people of Passaic City and emergency responders dodged a deadly chlorine chemical fire bullet last year at the Qualco chemical storage plant.

The Bergen Record reported that the fire could have been “one of the biggest disasters in the Country”:

• Keeping Passaic fire from chlorine prevented ‘one of the biggest disasters in the country’

The fire exposed huge gaps in NJ’s chemical safety and emergency response laws, known as the Right To Know Act (RTK) and the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA).

I wrote Chairman Smith on Jan. 18, 2022 to urge that those gaps be closed:

Dear Chairman Smith:

I am writing to urge that you direct an independent investigation, conduct open public legislative oversight hearings, and sponsor much needed legislative reforms to strengthen chemical safety and emergency response management planning and regulation, as recently exposed by the chemical fire in Passaic NJ.

As you will recall, as Chairman of an Assembly Committee, you held oversight hearings in the wake of the 1995 Knapp Technologies explosion in Lodi, NJ that killed 4 workers and put the community and emergency responders at risk.

Since then there have been a number of related incidents that strongly suggest the need for strengthening NJ’s chemical safety programs, including the toxic train derailment that forced evacuation of the community in Paulsboro, NJ. …..[…]

On June 2, 2022, Senate Environment Committee Chairman Bob Smith and Senator Pou introduced legislation to close exactly the main loopholes I wrote about  (but not the environmental justice law loophole) and mandate reforms to DEP’s chemical “Right To Know” program, see S2739

Following a pattern, Gov. Murphy responded with a minor and largely symbolic Executive Order #284, that was long on rhetoric and short on substance (while his DEP Commissioner ignored all that and held multiple press events and Zoom press briefing calls exaggerating risks of Pinelands wildfire, while spouting drivel about his deep commitment to environmental justice. I can hardly imagine a greater injustice than a chemical fire that killed people and burned down a city.)

The bill was fast tracked and quietly released from the Senate Environment Committee with no testimony or discussion or media coverage.

But, just as we predicted, it went to Senator Sarlo’s Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee to die, see:

• Did Chemical Industry Lobbyists Kill The Passaic City Fire Loophole Legislation?

So today, we wrote to urge Senate President Scutari to break the logjam in Sarlo’s Committee, post the bill for Senate vote, and get the bill on the Gov. Murphy’s desk:

Dear Senate President Scutari:

We are approaching the one year anniversary of the major chemical fire in Passaic City at the Qualco chemical storage site.

The people of the City and emergency responders dodged a deadly bullet, in what could have been a deadly chlorine fire, described by emergency responder as what could have been ‘one of the biggest disasters in the country’ (Bergen Record).

The fire exposed huge gaps in NJ’s chemical safety laws.

Senators Pou and Smith responded with legislation, see S2739.

The bill was released by the Senate Environment Committee but is now stalled in the Budget and Appropriations committee.

I am writing to urge that you talk to Chairman Sarlo and get the bill moving through the Senate and on the Governor’s desk ASAP.

Let’s not risk another possibility of experiencing “one of the biggest disasters in the country'”.

Respectfully,

Bill Wolfe

(retired DEP planner)

Public Comments Blasted DEP’s Failure To Seriously Tackle The Climate Emergency

DEP Blames PJM For DEP’s Lax Carbon Standards And No Methane Requirements

DEP Revives Debate About a NJ Exit from PJM Grid

After caving to big oil & business community opposition and abandoning proposed boiler upgrade requirements – a positive but very small first step in a necessary building electrification program – on Monday, the Murphy DEP quietly adopted proposed new rules on carbon dioxide emissions from a small set of large power plants.

There was no spun press release touting the DEP’s “historic” achievement on this one.

From what I can tell, the NJ press corps – and especially the self described leading energy and climate policy journalistic outfit NJ Spotlight  – have not reported the story. I guess it’s not allowed to criticize DEP over at NJ Spotlight (they did a second! puff piece on invasives today) – so I guess we must bring you the bad news.

You see, this story can not be written without exposing the total sham of Gov. Murphy’s climate commitments and Executive Orders, repeated DEP press spin, and the toothless Global Warming Response Act.

We explained why the proposed rule was weak in this post last December 2021:

• Murphy DEP’s Proposed New Greenhouse Gas (CO2) Emission Rule Is Far Weaker Than Obama EPA Clean Power Plan

We won’t repeat that criticism here today, other than to warn of one serious mistake a small NJ media outfit already made regarding the carbon emission standards DEP adopted.

• N.J. implements new rules targeting power plants

The DEP’s 860 pound emission standard is exactly like Joe Biden’s marijuana pardon – it applies to no one and will have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

For today, we’ only post the “highlights” from the DEP’s response to a storm of criticism in the public comments.

Basically, DEP claimed that the PJM grid made them do it – that PJM has a gun to NJ’s head and will not allow NJ to adopt real carbon restrictions on the power sector.

If that claim is true, then it is a strong argument for NJ to leave the PJM grid and establish its own State grid, an issue that was discussed a few years back and abandoned, see:

• Fierce debate over NJ’s clean-energy goals centers on possible abandonment of regional power grid

Here are the critical public comments and DEP’s response that blames PJM – the business community comments also blasted the DEP proposal for having very little impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

(Note: the number after the comment identifies the commenter – see the list of names and numbers at the outset of the document. Read the complete DEP adoption document and response to all public comments. Boldface mine.)

EGU Emission Reductions

133. COMMENT: The rules will achieve only a small percentage of the emission reductions needed to meet the 80×50 and 50×30 goals. (31, 40, 43, 63, 86, 88, 108, 125, 138, 140, 144, 155, 163, 181, and 196)

134. COMMENT: Not only will the rules fail to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the GWRA and the Governor’s 50×30 goal, but the rules are counter-productive to those goals. (7 and 65)

135. COMMENT: The rules will not achieve an 80 percent reduction in the State’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (80×50 goal). (3, 5, 8, 32, 44, 66, 68, 73, 81, 91, 93, 94, 99, 105, 108, 113, 120, 141, 142, 158, 182, and 192)

136. COMMENT: The rules only achieve three percent of the reductions needed to reach the 80×50 goal, and the bulk of those reductions would take place after 2030. (9 and 130)

137. COMMENT: The rules will not achieve a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2006 levels by 2030 (50×30 goal) established by EO 274. (5, 8, 43, 52, 67, 68, 69, 74, 76, 79, 104, 120, 126, 133, 138, 143, 152, 172, 173, and 196)

138. COMMENT: The rules only get three percent of the reductions needed to achieve the 50×30 goal and are mostly backloaded for 2035 and beyond. (3, 32, 34, 64, 66, 73, 91, 94, 99, 104, 105, 142, 147, 174, 182, 191, and 192)

139. COMMENT: The rules will be nowhere near effective enough to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030. (115, 133, 154, and 191)

140. COMMENT: The Department must propose a better rule in order to meet the 50×30 goal set forth in Governor Murphy’s Executive Orders. (52, 62, 64, 74, 100, 121, 125, 130, 162, 164, 172, 174, 183, 188, and 191)

141. COMMENT: The rules do not even mention the 50×30 goal. (3, 32, 34, 66, 68, 73, 91, 94, 99, 105, 108, 112, 113, 125, 142, 147, 182, 184, 192, and 196)

142. COMMENT: The rules will achieve only four percent of the needed emission reductions. (75 and 143)

143. COMMENT: The rules will not achieve the high level of greenhouse gas emission reductions that science indicates is necessary to address the climate change. (5, 10, 65, 66, 67, 74, 86, 107, 138, 167, 172, and 196)

144. COMMENT: The existing New Jersey mandates, per the 2019 New Jersey Energy Master Plan (EMP) Figure 1 Reference 2 curve, do not bring New Jersey anywhere near the target of 100 percent clean electric and 80 percent greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050. (51 and 119)

145. COMMENT: The rules do not meet or beat the Federal greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. (58, 93, 108, and 135)

146. COMMENT: The Department must strengthen these rules to achieve greater reductions sooner. (9, 40, 93, 98, and 140)

147. COMMENT: The Department should develop rules that will result in net zero emissions from the electric sector by 2035. (81 and 135)

148. COMMENT: The State needs a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to real zero, not net zero, by 2030 or 2035. These rules fail to meet the needed reductions. (37)

DEP RESPONSE TO COMMENTS (@ page 69)

… as the Department and other State agencies work together to implement comprehensive policies and rules to transition the State’s electric generation sector to net zero, variables, such as the availability of renewable electric generation in New Jersey and the PJM region, storage capacity, and increased or decreased electricity demand must be considered. Ibid. Reducing emissions from the electric generating sector is a complex process, in part because New Jersey is part of a regional grid. For example, even if the Department implemented an emission limit that 90 percent of the State’s EGUs could not meet, demand for electricity in New Jersey would not change. Consequently, PJM, the regional grid, would be required to supply that demand to avoid compromising the reliability of the grid. Demand would likely be met with either a request from PJM that an in-State EGU(s) continue operating beyond its announced retirement date (“Reliability Must Run” or “RMR”) to maintain reliable operation, or with electricity from out-of-State generation that is likely to have a higher rate of CO2 emissions; either outcome would result in greater carbon emissions. The latter is known as leakage. For this reason, the Department has pursued a measured approach to the emission limits. This approach included consideration of an estimated projection of the PJM CO2 marginal rate (as compared to the proposed emission limits), as well as the proposed timing of new renewable energy sources, such as offshore wind. 53 N.J.R. at 1947. A measured approach is necessary to avoid simply shifting electricity supply from in-State to out-of-State EGUs.

That means that PJM has a gun to our heads and that PJM – not the NJ Legislature, Gov. Murphy, or the BPU and DEP – sets energy and climate policy in NJ.

That means that public comments are meaningless.

And in addition to dictating NJ’s carbon and energy policies, PJM’s “capacity based location” rules impose over $1 billion surcharge annually on NJ consumers, which is far more than the cost of RGGI carbon allowances and more than the allegedly huge subsidies NJ provides to solar you read about constantly in NJ Spotlight coverage – combined! Worse, that billion dollar surcharge goes to corporate profits and stockholder dividends, not investments in the grid or renewable energy, see:

• The $1.5 Billion Tax You Never Heard Of

That is not democracy, it’s corporate fascism, folks (few people realize that PJM is a private corporation not a public entity, see:

• The Game Is Rigged – PJM In Bed With Fossil Power Corporations

The whole NJ DEP climate program is a sham, as this rule response to comments document itself proves.

Spinning Out Of Control And Believing You Own Bullshit

Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette in the creepiest Zoom background ever.

Sometimes my skepticism and sometimes cynicism gets overwhelmed by the Orwellian reality.

Anyone who has been paying attention – and I don’t mean the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC,  NPR, et al – has come to realize Ukrainian President Zelensky is a propaganda artist and gaslighter who has zero credibility among academics and serious people.

His latest stunt before the US Congress was the final act for him, as he destroys his country “fighting Russia to the last man”.

So, today, we create our own inaugural Zelensky Award – and I personally nominate this statement for First Prize:

“Every natural resource of our state belongs directly to the people of New Jersey, and as the trustee of their natural resources, it is our job to make sure that when pollution damages our environment, the people are paid back for the harm to their natural resources,” DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette said in a written statement.

“A true turnaround story, this settlement would transform one of New Jersey’s most notorious polluted sites into one of our biggest environmental success stories—one that delivers the natural resource quality that every community deserves, shoulder-to-shoulder with a good corporate citizen determined to repair the environmental damage of our shared industrial past. My sincere thanks to BASF and every partner that contributed to this success for the people of New Jersey.”

It’s a “story” all right – and it is shameful for a DEP Commissioner to elevate a narrative “story” over facts, science, history, and policy.

A “story” dutifully transcribed by Ocean County “news” outlet WOBM:

https://wobm.com/new-jersey-ciba-geigy-update/

We welcome endorsements, testimonials, and additional nominations from our readers and will award the prize on April 1.

Dispatch from the Sonoran – Over and out.

DEP Failed To Consult With And Blindsided Toms River Community 

DEP Whitewashed Childhood Cancer Cluster

DEP Literally Used Green Cheerleaders As Media Promoters

The more I learn of the Murphy DEP’s sweetheart deal with corporate chemical giant BASF at the Toms River Ciba-Geigy Superfund site, the more it stinks to high heavens.

According to DEP documents, DEP provided a “privileged and confidential” power point briefing to select friendly environmental group leaders on Friday afternoon, December 2, 2022, just prior to the DEP’s Monday December 5 press release announcing the deal. Invited and attending the briefing were: 1) Eileen Murphy, NJ Audubon; 2) Taylor McFarland, NJ Sierra Club, 3) Dave Pringle, Consultant for Clean Water Action, 4) Doug O’Malley, Environment NJ, and 5) Stan Hales, Save Barnegat Bay and 6 of their associates. NJ Audubon and NJ Sierra were later provided quotes praising the deal in the DEP’s December 5, 2022 Press Release.

The environmentalists were invited to the briefing by a November 30, 2002 email, which explicitly demanded that the conduct and contents of the meeting be kept secret and “STRICTLY EMBARGOED” (caps in original, boldface mine):

By way of this email, you are invited to a confidential briefing on the proposed Natural Resource Damages Settlement Agreement concerning injuries to natural resources resulting from discharges of hazardous substances at the Ciba-Geigy Superfund Site in Toms River. ….

Please note that the information contained in this email and the additional details that will be provided at the briefing are STRICTLY EMBARGOED until the proposed announcement is published in the New Jersey Register on Monday, December 5.

Let’s break that down before we proceed further:

1) a DEP secret briefing with hand picked environmental leaders is flat out wrong and possibly illegal.

2) DEP conducting a secret briefing with hand picked environmentalist – after failing to consult with or involve the community and local officials in settlement negotiations – is totally unacceptable and possibly illegal.

3) it is corrupt for environmental leaders to participate in such a secret meeting.

4) it is corrupt for environmental leaders to agree to secrecy and to “EMBARGO” information and keep the briefing secret. The whole concept of an EMBARGO for environmental groups is absurd. An “EMBARGO” is a tool for media and agreed to by willing press hacks.

5) it is, at best, extreme DEP gaslighting and total manipulation, to invite environmental leaders to a secret briefing of a final NRD restoration plan after over 3 years of negotiations on and final agreement on the contents of the plan, which is to be released in final form 3 days later.

6) Obviously, environmental groups willingly and knowingly allowed themselves to be used.

[Update – a knowledgeable Trenton source writes to advise that there’s more involved than merely being used as a media cheerleader – NJ Audubon will economically benefit via consulting contracts (that explains all the emphasis in the DEP Plan on butterfly and bird habitat):

Audubon is an active participant they will do consultation on the the site and sierra knew better and wants to suck up. ~~~ end update].

I obtained the DEP briefing documents, meeting invitation, and attendance list for the briefing by filing an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to DEP, based upon a Trenton’s source’s heads up leak about the meeting.

As far as I know, based on news reports of criticism of the DEP’s deal by local elected officials, the Toms River community was unaware of and blindsided by the DEP’s deal, and played no role in the DEP’s settlement negotiations with BASF, which according to the briefing documents I obtained, began in 2019 and continued or over 3 years.

Repeat: DEP secretly negotiated this deal with corporate giant BASF for over three years, yet never solicited the input of the Toms River community or the public at large.

Then, after over 3 years of secret negotiation wit BASF, on the Friday afternoon before the DEP issued a Press Release publicly announcing the deal, the DEP hand picked friendly environmental group leaders, provided them a secret briefing, and literally used them as DEP press agents (EMBARGO) and quoted NJ Audubon and NJ Sierra Club praise in the text of the DEP press release!

Finally, by labelling the presentation “Privileged”, DEP attempted to skirt OPRA public record laws and keep the whole thing secret. I only got a heads up by a Trenton leaker. This is disgusting.

All this is a pattern of egregious misconduct and totally unacceptable.

We’ll post the full briefing presentation in our next post, with some initial thoughts about it soon.

Gross Insensitivity To Victims Of Childhood Cancer Cluster Disqualifies

Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette (Source: NJ Spotlight, 12/30/22 interview)

Let me pose a hypothetical to illustrate just how badly Murphy DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette bungled the controversial BASF sweetheart settlement in Toms River NJ, home of a nationally recognized and notorious childhood cancer cluster.

This hypothetical holds whether you think the settlement is fair, or whether (as I do) you feel that the settlement is a gross corporate giveaway and sellout.

If the Connecticut Commissioner of the Department of Education issued a press release touting his “historic” settlement with Remington Arms – the manufacturer of the guns used in the Newtown Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter – that allowed the Company to create a playground, sell adjacent property to a developer for a huge multi-million dollar profit, and pay just $100,000 to the Dept. of Education bureaucrats, not the victims or the community – in exchange for a permanent covenant not to sue from the State – all without any consultation with the families of the victims or the local government – he would be fired before sunset.

Repeat: he would be fired before sunset.

Well, that’s exactly what Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette did in Toms River.

And far more children died in Toms River than Newtown.

LaTourette completely failed to consult with and blindsided the community – as I wrote:

But instead of consulting and working with the community, the Department blindsided the Toms River community. This is unforgivable, especially given the deeply troubling and emotionally scarring history of this site.

And even after weeks of criticism of his proposed settlement with BASF – and despite my proposal to provide a face saving exit –  in a December 30 interview with NJ Spotlight news, he still could not admit that mistakes were made and show any compassion for the families of the scores of children who died of cancers that the NJ State Department of Health causally attributed to Ciba-Geigy chemicals.

Shame on NJ Spotlight for failing to report that fact and instead reporting that the cancer cluster was “alleged” and creating the appearance that only Linda Gillick made the allegation.

Read the NJ DoH Report:

“The study found that prenatal exposure to two environmental factors in the past were associated with increased risk of leukemia in female children. These exposures were: 1) access to drinking water from the Parkway well field after the time that the well field was most likely to be contaminated, and 2) air pollutant emissions from the Ciba-Geigy chemical manufacturing plant.”

It is rare to statistically demonstrate the existence of a cancer cluster and rarer still to causally attribute the cancers to specific chemicals and to a specific source.

Ignoring all that, watch LaTourette pathetically split legal hairs about the distinction between natural resources damages and children’s cancer – and minimize the cancer to a single individual! (time just after 2 minutes).

This is pathological.

After watching this interview, I was overwhelmed with rage. I can’t imagine what a parent or resident must feel.

What kind of human being thinks and acts this way?

Equally, how could a DEP Commissioner arrogantly disregard the community like that?

The total lack of human compassion and the bureaucratic mismanagement and incompetence is astounding and disqualifying for a leader of a public institution.

Gov. Murphy must fire his ass – and soon.

More to follow.