The Murphy DEP Knew - And Was Warned - That Trump Toxic Air Pollution Rollbacks Were Coming And Did Nothing To Stop Them
DEP Actually Blocked Efforts To Avoid Trump Rollbacks By Denying Petition
DEP Is Either Incompetent Or Acting In Bad Faith
Trump just personally, as the President, took unprecedented action to roll back hazardous air pollution permit limits and public health protections under the Clean Air Act for over 100 facilities nationally.
As I recently wrote, two of these facilities are located in NJ: Linden and Hardyston.
Linden is a DEP designated "environmental justice community" where numerous industrial facilities emit numerous and significant quantities of hazardous air pollutants. Residents and workers are exposed to cumulative impacts of these multiple pollution sources and multiple pollutants (via multiple exposure routes: ambient air (inhalation), soil/dust (ingestion, inhalation and skin contact); water; food; and workplace) (info from a worthless EJ Report by our good friends at Citgo):
The Murphy DEP was long aware that these two NJ facilities:
1) emitted the known carcinogen ethylene oxide;
2) that these emissions were not regulated by EPA or DEP in permits due to fugitive emissions and unregulated emissions sources;
3) that there were no actual emissions data or ambient air quality data collected at these facilities; and
4) risk assessment and air pollution permit requirements did NOT consider cumulative risks from multiple other pollution sources and pollutants and exposure routes (water, soil, food, workplace).
The DEP also knew, but did not publicly disclose, that these toxic emissions of a single known carcinogen created cancer risks that exceed NJ DEP cancer risk standards by 100 to 2,000 times:
The EPA and DEP permits and risk assessment for these facilities are NOT based on actual ambient data or actual measurements of fugitive emissions and emissions from unregulated sources.
Polluters opposed sampling requirements due to costs and to avoid additional regulatory requirements and legal liability. DEP caved to the polluters and still does not require real ambient and emissions data.
The DEP fact sheet reveals this, yet does not require sampling data be collected. Here are relevant excerpts from the DEP "Fact Sheet":
"Actual on-site emissions from the Linden and Hardyston, New Jersey facilities were not measured by USEPA, but potential emissions were projected by USEPA through air quality simulation modeling."
"Importantly, the USEPA analysis was based on predictions of air quality simulation modeling and not the direct measurement of outdoor ambient air at the identified sites or the immediate vicinity."
"Further analysis may be necessary to quantify detailed site-specific risks from the Hardyston and Linden facilities. USEPA revised analysis indicates that the Hardyston facility cancer risk has been reduced due to more accurate estimates of fugitive emissions and their release into the atmosphere."
"In 2019, the USEPA began an analysis of ambient air samples collected by NJDEP to detect the presence of EtO, which was found at each of the [DEP's] four air toxics monitoring sites. These data show the presence of EtO in ambient air across the state, even in rural areas away from industrial operations, suggesting that there is a background level of EtO in New Jersey’s ambient air."
The DEP knew that Trump issued executive Orders that would repeal and roll back new Biden EPA regulations and permit requirements that were designed to address some of the above noted fatal flaws and strengthen public health protections.
I filed a formal petition for rulemaking to warn DEP about these pending rollbacks and demand that DEP act to prevent them.
DEP denied that petition, and in the denial document DEP basically LIED.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) DEP knew of unacceptable pollution risks long before they denied my petition, yet claimed there were no NJ pollution sources subject to Trump's announced exemptions.
2) DEP KNEW the Trump rollbacks were coming and did nothing to stop them.
3) Instead, DEP actually denied a petition that would have forced them to prevent these rollbacks and they lied about why they denied the petition.
I wrote the following letter to DEP Commissioner LaTourette (with excerpts of and links to the regulatory receipts. Apologies for the screwed up fonts):
Dear Commissioner LaTourette:
I am deeply troubled by recent decisions by the Department, where the facts strongly suggest that those decisions were made either in bad faith or due to incompetence.
Specifically, as you know, on July 17, 2025, President Trump issued Exemptions from limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act for, among over 100 other facilities nationally, two sterilizer facilities in NJ in Linden and Hardyston that emit the known carcinogen ethylene oxide (EtO).
As you also know, EPA conducted risk screening assessments of these EtO emissions from NJ facilities and found risks that exceeded NJ DEP cancer risk standards for air toxics by from 100 - 2,000 times.
DEP issued a "fact sheet", last updated in December 2022, that failed to mention that risk standard or exceedence. The DEP fact sheet also stated:
“NJDEP is working with these facilities to identify and address uncontrolled EtO emissions. ...
"USEPA is drafting revisions to the existing air pollution regulations that will require facilities to reduce or eliminate uncaptured emissions and will be seeking comments from the public and other stakeholders in early 2023. NJDEP continues to recommend reduction or elimination of uncaptured emissions and will be reviewing USEPA's rule proposal to ensure emissions from New Jersey facilities will be adequately reduced for the protection of public health.
NJDEP will update the host communities as we receive additional information and these efforts advance."
You also know the following regulatory chronology:
1. The Biden EPA NESHAP sterilizer rules were adopted on March 14, 2024:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-07/linden-nj-eto-final-rulemaking-fact-sheet.pdf
2. The Trump Section 112 exemptions were announced on April 8, 2025 Ex. Order:
3. On April 14, 2025 EPA went into more detail and listed the categories of facilities, specifically sterilization plants under the Biden EPA rule, (thus Linden and Hardyston)
“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review” (89 FR 24090; April 5, 2024) (Sterilizer Rule);
See the broader EPA announcement:
3. On March 28, 2025 we filed a petition for rulemaking to DEP. The petition specifically sought to block the issuance of Section 112 exemptions at NJ facilities, including under the Biden EPA sterilizer rules:
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review (89 FR 24090; April 5, 2024) (Sterilizer Rule)
4. On July 7, 2025, the Department denied the petition, in part, on the basis that:
“The Department is aware of no purported Federal exemption affecting stationary sources in the State."
Clearly, based on the above documents and regulatory chronology, the Department was fully aware of "Federal exemption affecting stationary sources in the State." They were announced by Trump’s Executive Order and EPA’s public announcement of the Section 112 exemptions. So that statement is false and misleading (by significant substantive omissions).
Furthermore, the Department claimed that even if an exemption was issued, the NJ DEP regulations on "facility-wide risk" assessment (which are incorporated in DEP regulations as "Guidance" and thus of questionable enforceability) would protect public health. DEP denial document stated:
"However, even assuming that a Federal exemption had been granted, the Department’s State rules independently require major sources of air pollution to evaluate facility-wide risk. As explained below, even if a Federal exemption were at issue, public and environmental health would be protected by application of the Department’s existing rules. The requested rulemaking is not necessary to achieve these protective ends.”
This also is false, as the Department's own fact sheet reveals that NJ DEP facility wide risk assessment had failed to be conducted and/or failed limit emissions of EtO, including emissions that exceeded DEP cancer risk standards by from 100 - 2,000 times.
[Note: see the NJ APA for inability to enforce "Guidance":
c. A regulatory guidance document that has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to P.L.1968, c.410, shall not:
(1) impose any new or additional requirements that are not included in the State or federal law or rule that the regulatory guidance document is intended to clarify or explain; or
(2) be used by the State agency as a substitute for the State or federal law or rule for enforcement purposes.
d. As used in this section, "regulatory guidance document" means any policy memorandum or other similar document used by a State agency to provide technical or regulatory assistance or direction to the regulated community to facilitate compliance with a State or federal law or a rule adopted pursuant to P.L.1968, c.410, but shall not include technical manuals adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1991, c.422 (C.13:1D-111). ~~~ end Note.]
Again, despite all this regulatory history and facility specific knowledge and involvement by the Department, on July 7, 2025, this is what DEP wrote as justification to deny my rule petition:
“The Department is aware of no purported Federal exemption affecting stationary sources in the State."
https://dep.nj.gov/wp-https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/rules/petition/pet20250328noa.pdf
That conclusion is made either due to gross incompetence or made in bad faith.
Finally, as you also know, Linden is a designated "environmental justice community" pursuant to NJ law and DEP regulations.
Numerous industrial sources in Linden emit numerous and significant quantities of hazardous air pollutants.
Thus the cumulative risks and health impacts are significant.
However, neither NJ DEP or US EPA regulations and permit requirements address cumulative impacts.
I expect a response to this letter.
Bill Wolfe
Sad. The best governance money can buy?