WolfeNotes.com

DEP Notes “Catastrophic Risks” Of Climate Change At Oil And Chemical Plant Accidents

Proposal Ignores Environmental Justice Issues At 250 Oil And Chemical Plants

DEP Eliminating Significant Regulatory Protections For “Nominal Concentrations” Of Hazardous Chemicals

The Department is using the high-end sea-level rise because the damage or loss due to a discharge, as a result of failed planning for these types of facilities, may have a catastrophic impact or debilitating effect on human health and the environment. ~~~ DEP proposal, page 18)

The Murphy DEP today proposed to update current regulations on the safe storage and prevention of discharge of petroleum and hazardous chemical substances. The rules include emergency response planning and cleanup (read the proposal here).

These regulations are known as the “Discharge Prevention, Containment, And Counter-Measures (DPCC) program rules:

The rules at Discharges of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substances, N.J.A.C. 7:1E
(the DPHS rules), implement the Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11a et seq. (the Spill Act or the Act), which sets stringent standards for discharge prevention and emergency response requirements for facilities storing or handling hazardous substances. The DPHS rules establish standards for emergency response in the event of a discharge of a hazardous substance. The DPHS rules also establish standards for discharge prevention for
major facilities storing or handling hazardous substances.

Today, I will highlight several significant flaws, including:

• Failure To Consider Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Global Warming Response Act
• Failure To Consider NJ’s Environmental Justice Law And Regulations or EJ Risks
• Putting The Oil and Chemical Industry In Charge Of Toothless “Climate Resilience Plans”
• Eliminating Significant Protections For Low Concentrations of Hazardous Chemicals
• Failure To Address Lessons Learned By Prior NJ Chemical Accidents
• Lack Of Transparency And Failure to Provide For Effective Public Participation

1) Global Warming Response Act And Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Ignored

Although the rules apply to the oil industry and facilities that directly and indirectly are responsible for huge greenhouse gas emissions, the DEP proposal does not mention the Global Warming Response Act or emissions reduction goals. DEP selectively ignored this state law, but did apply other State laws, including the Flood Hazard Act.

How do you ignore GHG emissions when regulating oil and gasoline storage?

2) Toothless Climate Resilience Plans

The proposal is limited to “adaptation” (what DEP calls “resilience”). The resilience standards are flawed, because they ignore extreme heat (which creates risks at these facilities due to expansion, evaporation, explosive risks et al) and are based on the FEMA 100 year storm event (coast) and the similarly outdated DEP inland flooding standards (100 year event plus additional height).

According to the DEP proposal, the risks posed by approximately 250 regulated oil and chemical facilities are significant, and “may have a catastrophic impact or debilitating effect on human health and the environment.”

Those are DEP’s words.

Yet despite “catastrophic” risks, the DEP climate resilience plans are toothless, have no implementation requirements, and allow the oil and chemical industries to self regulate – and with zero public notification or involvement.

Here is the DEP summary of the Climate Resilience Plans: (page 16)

In general terms, in order to prepare the CR plan, the owner or operator of a major
facility must evaluate the facility in light of rising sea level, increased rainfall, extreme weather events, and increased flooding, and identify and consider potential protections against discharges that may be caused by these events.The proposed rules do not require the owner or operator to immediately implement mitigation measures. Instead, the Department intends that the proposed requirement to prepare a CR plan will promote resiliency awareness and resiliency planning at these facilities.

The impacted host community has zero input on these plans.

3. Environmental Justice Risks And Impacts Are Ignored

According to the DEP proposal, these 250 facilities were not mapped in terms of location in environmental justice communities or proximity to “sensitive receptors” like schools, daycares, hospitals, or housing developments.

Instead of informing the public about where these facilities are located and whether they have environmental justice impacts, the DEP proposal merely stated:

Major facilities subject to the DPHS rules are widespread over the State’s 21 counties at urban, suburban, and rural sites. There are approximately 250 facilities presently defined as major and, therefore, subject to the DPHS rules.”

The proposal does not even mention the concept of environmental justice.

Yet scores of regulated facilities are located in designated environmental justice communities.

How can DEP get away with that?

4. Rollback Of Protections For Facilities That Have Low Concentrations of Hazardous Chemicals

Granting a long time oil and chemical industry request that DEP has denied historically, the Murphy DEP is proposing significant regulatory relief for what they call “nominal concentrations” of hazardous substances (1.0% and 0.1% for carcinogens).

These “nominal” facilities are allowed to submit “abridged plans”.

“Nominal” includes concentrations of 1,000 parts per million of chemical carcinogens. These chemicals have risks in the parts per billion range.

DEP conducted no environmental fate and transport or risk assessment of this entire exemption. There is no public notice or community input in the “nominal” relief process granted by DEP.

Here are the significant regulatory protections that DEP is eliminating for these “nominal” facilities, virtually the entire technical guts of the program:

The abridged plan also does not require a drainage and land use (DLU) map or topographic maps delineating environmentally sensitive areas.

An abridged DCR plan does not require a description of off-site response measures, including a description of the protection and mitigation measures for off-site residential, environmentally sensitive, or other areas prioritized based on use, seasonal sensitivity, or other relevant factors. Nor must the abridged DCR plan describe provisions for an environmental assessment of the impact of any discharge, include a certification by a marine biologist or aquatic biologist or ecologist or freshwater equivalent and ornithologist describing the procedures for determining the recycling or disposal options for hazardous substances or contaminated soil, debris, and so forth, gathered during housekeeping or cleanup and removal activities; or include a copy of a current agreement with the local emergency planning committee or committees that coordinates the emergency responses of the parties to the agreement. Otherwise, the requirements for an abridged plan are the same as for a full DCR plan

5. Failure To Address Lessons Learned By Prior NJ Chemical Accidents

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a scathingly critical report on numerous failures during the Paulsboro toxic train derailment that forced evacuation of the community. That Report was not even mentioned.

There have been many other major oil and chemical spills, explosions, fires, and other accidents in NJ and nationally that provide lessons and examples of lax regulation, oversight, and enforcement. All were ignored.

6.  Lack Of Transparency And Failure to Provide For Effective Public Participation

In general, this program is opaque, and much of the information is confidential based on Homeland Security and other corporate secrecy protections.

Local Emergency Planning Committees are ineffective, given little information, and manipulated.

There is little public awareness or media coverage of these “catastrophic” risks.

The DEP proposal actually makes the current situation worse by allowing huge loophole to operate under the nominal exemption process and the industry controlled “climate resilience” plans.

Also, the DEP is holding only 1 “virtual” public hearing on June 11 at 9 am. A virtual hearing frustrates meaningful public involvement and the June 11 date is far too early to allow the public to analyze the proposal.

We will be submitting comments to the DEP and encourage readers to do so as well. Hit the link to the proposal above to get info on how to submit comments.

It will be interesting to see how the EJ and climate activists respond – Will they give the Murphy DEP another pass?

We Warned About The Washington Post’s “Bombshell” Story Months Ago

More media Coverage Of Porn Star Payments Than Multiple Existential Crises

Trump is now actively marketing and fundraising off his “Project 2025″ Plan, pledging $110 BILLION in regulatory rollbacks and tax cuts to Big Oil and Gas in exchange for a $1 BILLION campaign contribution.

The Guardian reports:

Trump promised to scrap climate laws if US oil bosses donated $1bn – report

Donald Trump dangled a brazen “deal” in front of some of the top US oil bosses last month, proposing that they give him $1bn for his White House re-election campaign and vowing that once back in office he would instantly tear up Joe Biden’s environmental regulations and prevent any new ones, according to a bombshell new report.

According to the Washington Post, the former US president made his jaw-dropping pitch, which the paper described as “remarkably blunt and transactional”, at a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago home and club.

In front of more than 20 executives, including from Chevron, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum, he promised to increase oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, remove hurdles to drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, and reverse new rules designed to cut car pollution. He would also overturn the Biden administration’s decision in January to pause new natural gas export permits which have been denounced as “climate bombs”.

We told you this was coming last August, when I wrote:

The Right Wing’s New Long Game Plan – “Project 2025″

The billionaire backed corporate Right wing think tanks have generated a new long game plan for the next Republican administration.

The Plan is explicitly designed to “dismantle the administrative state”.

It’s name is “Project 2025″.

Chapter 13 provides a radical agenda to dismantle EPA and virtually all regulatory, science, and climate programs – read it here:

But the US media has spilled more ink over Trump’s hush payments to a porn star.

And that explains why we face multiple existential crises, including climate catastrophe, ecological collapse, nuclear Armageddon, Genocide, and another “Gain of Function” global pandemic.

Listen to Professor Jeff Sachs explain the history of how we got here.

His warning about the ongoing gain of function research and lab leaks that caused the COVID pandemic are jaw dropping and being ignored by mainstream media.

Market Price Just Collapsed – Price Less Than 0.5% Of True Social Cost Of Carbon

Scientific Reports Document Major Flaws

Murphy DEP Urged To Not Go There

The Biden Administration just issued policy guidelines to promote voluntary carbon market trading schemes, see:

• Voluntary Carbon Markets Joint Policy Statement and Principles

[Red Flags:

• Land management agencies are making significant investments in improved soils, grassland, and forest data at home and abroad that will reduce measurement uncertainty and support the integrity of VCMs.

• Expanding market opportunities for credible credit providers is an important component of the United States’ climate strategy. Addressing the barriers (e.g., high transaction costs) facing credit generating suppliers—including farmers, ranchers, forest owners, small businesses, developing country jurisdictions, and others—can improve the overall ability of VCMs to produce high integrity credits that advance decarbonization and generate economic opportunity.

The ill-timed and ill-conceived move comes in the wake of several scientific reports that found major flaws with the current voluntary market program and the collapse of the price in 2023.

Even the pro-Biden and pro-market Neoliberal NY Times reported that today:

Yet a growing number of studies and reports have found that many carbon offsets simply don’t work. Some offsets help fund wind or solar projects that likely would have been built anyway. And it’s often extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness of offsets intended to protect forests.

I’ve long been an opponent of all forms of market based pollution trading schemes.

Recall this 2001 Trenton press conference (I did the analysis and presented it as NJ Sierra Club Policy Director). (from the Bergen Record)

EMISSIONS TRADING PROGRAM CRITICIZED AS BOON TO POLLUTERS
By ALEX NUSSBAUM, Staff Writer
Date: 02-15-2001, Thursday

The state’s industries may be taking advantage of a law that allows them to buy or sell the right to pollute, environmentalists said Wednesday.

The five-year-old system that allows companies to trade air pollution credits has loopholes that make it impossible to tell if factories or power plants are really reducing emissions, critics said at a Trenton news conference.

That work led directly to – and I can take credit for killing the Whitman Administration’s voluntary “Open Market Emissions Trading” (OMET) program.

For an in depth blow by blow analysis of that, see:

• THE RISE AND FALL OF OPEN MARKET EMISSIONS TRADING IN NEW JERSEY

the main problem with market-based systems concerned the big picture of emissions trading and its relation to existing policy — the fundamental change of approach to regulating air pollution. Federal officials were concerned with the transition from a regulatory style rooted in command-and-control thinking to one further complicated by a new incentive framework and whether or not it could be administered effectively. […]

The proposed federal [OMET] rule also stipulated that any state seeking to incorporate OMT programs had to comply with federal guidance for all EIPs and this stipulation required incentive programs to be “designed to benefit both the environment and the regulated entity” (EPA, 1995). The OMET program clearly violated this condition. New Jersey’s own SIP submission clearly stated “no VOC or NOx emissions reductions were projected to be associated with the implementation of the NJ OMET program” (Wolfe, 2001). […]

The public comment period required by the conditional approval prompted joint written comments from the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club and PEER to EPA’s IG.

Those formal written comments itemized the two group’s concerns regarding EPA’s proposed approval despite “numerous cautionary findings by the Inspector General that such programs may be deeply flawed and would pose a hazard to public health.” In addition, the groups collectively claimed that facilities “used this never-approved program both to generate credits and use them to demonstrate ‘compliance’ with the Clean Air Act’s requirements” (Ruch and Wolfe, 2001).

The IG responded to the concerns of PEER and New Jersey’s Sierra Club by initiating an investigation in 2001 that focused on the emissions trading programs launched in New Jersey and Michigan.

(Source: Ruch, J. and Wolfe, B. (2001). Letter to Nikki Tinsley, Office of Inspector General, US Environmental Protection Agency. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Washington, DC and New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, Princeton, NJ).

More recently, just 3 weeks ago I wrote to get the word out that the Murphy DEP was developing a carbon trading program for NJ, including for forest management, see:

• Scientists Report: Market Based Carbon Trading Scheme Fails To Protect Forests Or Reduce Poverty

So, given the Biden Administration’s new push (and likely funding for), there is likely to be additional pressure on DEP to move forward with an expanded carbon trading scheme (beyond the RGGI cap and trade program, which provides several million dollars for carbon sequestration in forests).

To try to nip this in the bud, I sent another warning letter to legislative and Murphy DEP policymakers and environmental and climate activists:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE <b>

To: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>, “john.cecil@dep.nj.gov” <john.cecil@dep.nj.gov>, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senmckeon@njleg.org” <senmckeon@njleg.org>, “asmScharfenberger@njleg.org” <asmScharfenberger@njleg.org>

Cc: “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>, “ferencem@njspotlightnews.org” <ferencem@njspotlightnews.org>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “O’Neill, James” <ONeillJ@northjersey.com>

Date: 05/28/2024 8:28 AM EDT

Subject: Biden – Forestry carbon markets

Friends – The Biden administration just issued policy guidance on voluntary carbon market trading, see today’s NY Times story which was surprisingly critical:

Carbon Offsets, a Much-Criticized Climate Tool, Get Federal Guidelines

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/climate/yellen-carbon-offset-market.html

I’ve previously criticized carbon markets, most recently in response to the Murphy DEP’s development of a offset/trading program, particularly for forest management, see:

Scientists Report: Market Based Carbon Trading Scheme Fails To Protect Forests Or Reduce Poverty

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2024/05/scientists-report-market-based-carbon-trading-scheme-fails-to-protect-forests-or-reduce-poverty/

So, I thought I’d share this additional relevant scientific study, which found:

“Our analysis identifies important areas where the protocols deviate from scientific understanding related to baselines, leakage, risk of reversal, and the accounting of carbon in forests and harvested wood products, risking significant over-estimation of carbon offset credits.”

Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocol

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.958879/full

Those flaws possibly explain why the market has collapsed: (see attached graph)

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/010524-price-slump-in-2023-clouds-outlook-for-voluntary-carbon-market

I urge NJ policymakers in the Legislature and at DEP to just say no to trading and offset programs, particularly for forest management.

Any market based incentives should be based on the EPA Social Cost of Carbon (with the most conservative assumptions) and implemented via regulations.

Wolfe

We found a fairly secluded beach along Wissahickon Creek.

The creek flows through Wissahickon Valley Park.

Lots of good trails, with interesting history.

Charlie loved it too.

Annual Shore Tourism Public Relations Campaign Is Based On Lies By Omission

The ocean is in very, very bad shape.

A range of severe and unprecedented problems – from record high water temperatures, to increasing acidification, to over-fishing, to toxic chemical and nutrient overloads – threaten the collapse of ocean ecosystems.

For the latest science see, e.g. NOAA’s Climate Program Office.

None of that science was even mentioned in the Murphy DEP’s shameless shore tourism promotion.

You would never know about any of that based on reading the Murphy DEP’s annual Memorial Day shore tourism event, see:

• COMMISSIONER LATOURETTE DECLARES NEW JERSEY BEACHES, LAKES READY AS MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND APPROACHES

Lies come in two forms: omission and commission. Intentionally withholding material facts with the intent to mislead is a lie. DEP is lying to the public by presenting only the “good news”.

And you would never know that based on the lame and corrupted “advocacy” efforts of shore focused environmental groups, including Clean Ocean Action, American Littoral Society, and Save Barnegat Bay Partnership.

Those groups have one important thing in common: they receive DEP grant money, see:

• If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Buy ‘Em

They all sold out their mission long ago in exchange for  the DEP grant money.

It’s called “co-optation”.

So, as you get outside over the Memorial Day Weekend, please think about the health of the ocean.

I just wrote to Murphy DEP Commissioner Latourette and asked him to stop the “good news” spin, see:

———- Original Message ———-

From: Bill WOLFE

To: “shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov” <shawn.latourette@dep.nj.gov>

Cc: Benson Chiles <bensonchiles@gmail.com>, “zipf@cleanoceanaction.org” <zipf@cleanoceanaction.org>, “tim@littoralsociety.org” <tim@littoralsociety.org>, senbsmith <SenBSmith@njleg.org>, sengreenstein <sengreenstein@njleg.org>, “senmckeon@njleg.org” <senmckeon@njleg.org>, “wparry@ap.org” <wparry@ap.org>, “fkummer@inquirer.com” <fkummer@inquirer.com>, “ferencem@njspotlightnews.org” <ferencem@njspotlightnews.org>, “jonhurdle@gmail.com” <jonhurdle@gmail.com>

Date: 05/23/2024 4:34 PM EDT

Subject: State of the ocean

Dear Commissioner LaTourette:

Today, the Department released the annual Memorial Day tourism promotion, see:

https://nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2024/24_0020.htm

Once again, the Department misled the public about the health of the ocean, by focusing exclusively on a scientifically invalid indicator: bacteria, and single human use of the ocean and shoreline: swimming and beaches.

I take strong issue with the omissions of science regarding the real ecological health of the ocean.

The tourism promotional event provides a teachable moment. See NASA’s SOTO:

https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/technology/state-ocean-soto

So, we look forward to an honest press release that mentions, among other things, record high ocean temperatures, acidification, overfishing, fish and  shellfish consumption advisories, ecological collapse, and NOAA’s projected 85% likelihood of a more intensive Hurricane season.

And what ever became of the Coastal and Ocean Protection Council established by the legislature as an “in but not of” DEP Council? I wrote the bill for Senator Smith and it was signed into law as P.L. 2007, CHAPTER 288, approved January 13, 2008, see:

• What Ever Happened To The NJ Coastal And Ocean Protection Council?

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2021/11/what-ever-happened-to-the-nj-coastal-and-ocean-protection-council/

Wolfe

c: Chairman Smith