Stalled New Jersey environmental justice bill with big permit implications likely to pass

The long-anticipated legislation has major backing from lawmakers and community groups. Despite business community opposition, stakeholders such as Covanta have expressed their support.

The image by Kai Schreiber is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

By E.A. Crunden WasteDive

Stakeholders say a New Jersey bill that would significantly weigh environmental justice factors in a number of decisions around industrial projects is still likely to pass despite momentarily stalling in the state legislature. The legislation could affect new permits and renewals for facilities, with major implications for the waste and recycling industry.

The bill (S232) passed the state Senate by a vote of 22 to 14 in June. But after appearing all but certain to pass the Assembly in late July, lawmakers did not bring it to the floor for a vote.

If the bill passes, it would come despite opposition from many business stakeholders, who have said the legislation is vague with unclear impacts. Some members of the industry have also said they feel singled out, as the bill directly targets waste and recycling facilities, while also expressing support for certain components.

Both Covanta and Wheelabrator operate facilities in New Jersey and the National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA) has been closely following the bill. Steve Changaris, vice president of NWRA’s Northeast region, said the organization has expressed its concerns about the bill’s broad scope, which could impact pre-existing facilities along with new projects, including any stemming from New Jersey’s new commercial organics diversion mandate

“We all know that people have to be heard, and we want to incorporate their views into the decision-making,” Changaris said. But waste operators, he said, “just want to know what’s going to happen in the process.”

Despite such hesitations, sources largely agree the bill is likely to succeed barring any surprise hurdles. They cite momentum around the measure, which is backed by many lawmakers and members of low-income communities of color in the state, along with growing support for recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

A sweeping legislative effort

Attempts to create environmental justice legislation in New Jersey stretch back over a decade, with this latest bill getting farther than any prior attempt has before and set to become the strictest law of its kind nationwide according to stakeholders. 

Under S232, the state Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) would have to consider the impacts to “overburdened communities” posed by certain new facilities, along with expansions of those facilities or renewals of major source permits. It would be effective 180 days from enactment. 

The bill singles out any sites that are major sources of air pollution, along with “resource recovery” facilities or incinerators, landfills, transfer stations, sludge processing plants, and scrap metal facilities, as well as recycling facilities receiving at least 100 tons of recyclable material per day. Impacted communities are defined within census block groups with either 35% or more of households qualifying as low-income, at least 40% of residents being people of color, or at least 40% having reduced English proficiency. Estimates by lawmakers and various groups find around 300 of New Jersey’s 565 municipalities could have at least one community that falls into those categories. 

Sites in those areas would need to prepare an environmental justice statement and transmit it to the relevant municipality 60 days prior to a public hearing. A decision on the site would be delayed for at least 45 days following the hearing, and the department would ultimately be free to deny a permit on environmental justice grounds. 

Experts with knowledge of the process said the legislation could prevent the creation or continuation of a number of facilities, and even several supporters said it could hinder business efforts. Some estimated the environmental justice statement and public hearing process alone could cost around $50,000 or more, before accounting for other costs, including any operational expenses that would likely be much higher. 

A last-minute holdup occurred on July 30 when Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin did not bring the bill to the floor for a vote — seemingly due to labor pushback over the inclusion of permit renewals. Trade unions have expressed fears about the implications that measure could hold for jobs, according to reporting by Politico. In the days since, lawmakers have said they are working with those groups to address their concerns and that they still hope to pass the bill by Labor Day.  

The bill has buy-in from impacted communities and environmental groups, as well as Gov. Phil Murphy who has taken the unusual step of publicly throwing his support behind the effort. Other prominent names have also endorsed it. Sen. Cory Booker called into a virtual July 20 environment and solid waste committee hearing to speak in support of the legislation from his car while en route to Washington, D.C.

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Stalled New Jersey environmental justice bill with big permit implications likely to pass Read More »

New Jersey Supreme Court upholds Gov. Murphy’s $10B borrowing plan

By: NJBIZ STAFF
August 12, 2020 12:13 pm

The state Supreme Court unanimously upheld Gov. Phil Murphy’s plan to borrow nearly $10 billion to cover a huge budget shortfall caused by the COVID-19 economic downturn.

But in a 57-page opinion written by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the Court imposed some limitations on the borrowing authority.

GOP lawmakers and the state Republican Party had challenged the constitutionality of the scheme and on Aug. 5 the justices heard more than two hours of oral arguments in the case.

More details soon.

New Jersey Supreme Court upholds Gov. Murphy’s $10B borrowing plan Read More »

EPA Funding to Accelerate Ag Pollution Reductions in Pennsylvania

Projects Eyed in ‘Most Effective Basis’

Chesapeake watershed

Environmental Protection Agency News Releases

PHILADELPHIA (August 12, 2020) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced it is seeking applications to administer nearly $3.4 million to improve water quality in Pennsylvania streams and rivers and the Chesapeake Bay by reducing excess nitrogen from agricultural operations.

At the same time, EPA is providing an additional $300,000 to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to assist with projects that will result from the nearly $3.4 million appropriation.

Pennsylvania received the largest share of a pot of $6 million for targeted restoration actions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  The $6 million is part of an increase in the FY 2020 EPA Chesapeake Bay Program budget designated for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.”

“This is part of EPA’s commitment to helping states in the watershed achieve their goals of restoring local waters and the Chesapeake Bay,” said EPA Mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator Cosmo Servidio.  “These funds will get pollutant reduction projects on the ground in Pennsylvania in the quickest and most efficient way possible.”

In a separate announcement on July 14, 2020, EPA reallocated $3.8 million to support priority actions in Pennsylvania to reduce agricultural-related pollution.

Today’s EPA Request for Applications (RFA) will fund one or two multi-year cooperative agreements to accelerate the implementation of best management practices in Pennsylvania’s most effective basins, and to track, verify and report progress.

The intent of the RFA is to assist Pennsylvania in achieving its 2025 water quality goals under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL) and its Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).

EPA analyses have shown that reducing nitrogen through improved agricultural practices in the bay watershed is far less costly – and more effective – than reducing phosphorus to improve water quality.

Each state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed submitted Phase III WIPs, in which they committed to reduce nitrogen loads from the agriculture sector from 2019 to 2025. The following funding allocations were calculated as a percentage of the total of each bay jurisdictions’ WIP commitments:

  • Pennsylvania: $3,695,112
  • Virginia: $1,110,191
  • Maryland: $695,940
  • Delaware: $364,540
  • New York: $79,536
  • West Virginia: $54,681

The District of Columbia, the remaining jurisdictional partner, does not have an agricultural commitment in its Phase III WIP.

Each of the 383 basins in the Chesapeake Bay watershed was evaluated as part of a relative effectiveness determination. A total of 26 of the top 30 most effective basins are located in Pennsylvania, including all of the top 15.

As an upstream jurisdiction in the nation’s largest estuary, Pennsylvania has a significant impact on the Chesapeake Bay and much of its watershed and has a pivotal role in the ongoing restoration effort. The Susquehanna River provides about 50 percent of the freshwater flows to the estuary, about half of the nitrogen, and more than a quarter of the phosphorus.

According to its Phase III WIP, Pennsylvania only meets 75% of its numeric planning target for nitrogen by 2025, resulting in a 10-million-pound nitrogen gap.  Pennsylvania is planning to achieve more than 90 percent of its nitrogen reductions in the agriculture sector and has initiated county-wide pilot efforts in Lancaster, York, Adams, and Franklin counties to target the implementation of the most effective pollutant reduction practices in those locations with the largest opportunities for reducing pollutant loads.

Achieving the projected water quality goals in these counties, including initiating additional efforts to close the nitrogen gap, will require increased coordination and collaboration with the agriculture sector, as well as increased and accelerated levels of BMP implementation.

For more information and to see a copy of the RFA, visit: https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/epa-r3-cbp-20-03  

Don’t miss information like this Click for free EP Blog updates

EPA Funding to Accelerate Ag Pollution Reductions in Pennsylvania Read More »

Don’t you like to get something for free? Especially really cool things like today’s issue of EnviroPolitics

Click this link to receive today’s issue of EnviroPolitics.

Our daily subscription newsletter is read by leading environmental attorneys, engineers, consultants, business leaders, organizations and people like you who want to stay current with everything that’s happening in energy and environmental issues at the local, state and federal levels.

And, If you like what you see, take advantage of a very special offeran entire month of EnviroPolitics absolutely free.

Click here to start your free trial subscription. No obligation.

Don’t you like to get something for free? Especially really cool things like today’s issue of EnviroPolitics Read More »

EPA Releases Final Chemical Risk Evaluation for 1-BP


OPPT Update Header

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the final risk evaluation for 1-bromopropane (1-BP). Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is required to evaluate the risks associated with existing chemicals in commerce using the best available science before taking action to address any unreasonable risks. Today’s final risk findings complete the risk evaluation process required by TSCA for 1-BP.


EPA used feedback received from the public and the scientific peer review process carried out by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals to inform the final risk evaluation. The final risk evaluation for 1-BP shows that there are unreasonable risks to workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders for 16 out of 25 conditions of use. EPA did not find unreasonable risks to the environment or to the general population for all conditions of use.

The next step in the process required by TSCA is developing a plan to reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risks found in the final risk evaluation. EPA is moving immediately to risk management for this chemical and will work as quickly as possible to propose and finalize actions to protect workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders.

There are several actions EPA could take to address these risks, including regulations on how the chemical is used, or limiting or prohibiting the manufacture, processing, distribution in the marketplace, use, or disposal of this chemical, as applicable. As with any chemical product, EPA strongly recommends that users of products containing 1-BP continue to carefully follow all instructions on the product’s label and safety data sheet.
View the 1-BP final risk evaluation and supporting documents.

Background1-BP is used as a solvent in commercial and industrial applications and as a reactant in the manufacturing of other chemical substances. Common commercial uses of 1-BP are as a solvent in vapor degreasing, dry cleaning, spot cleaners, stain removers, adhesives, sealants, and automobile care products. Consumer uses include adhesives, degreasers, cleaners, and automobile care products.

In June 2020, EPA granted two petitions to add 1-BP to the Clean Air Act list of air toxics. 

Exposure to the general population from ambient air is not part of this risk evaluation. The agency will take a separate regulatory action to add 1-BP to the Clean Air Act list of Hazardous Air Pollutants. After 1-BP is added to the list, EPA may revise air toxic standards for source categories that emit 1-BP or add new source categories for sources of 1-BP emissions.

EPA plans to issue final risk evaluations for the remaining eight of the first 10 chemicals by the end of 2020. Learn more about the risk evaluation process required by TSCA: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/how-epa-evaluates-safety-existing-chemicals.

Don’t miss information like this Click for free EP Blog updates

EPA Releases Final Chemical Risk Evaluation for 1-BP Read More »

In first ad, Dem DePasquale wants you to go where everybody knows his name

By John L. Micek  Tuesday Morning Coffee, Pennsylvania Capital-Star

(Screen Capture)

Good Tuesday Morning, Fellow Seekers.

Democratic 10th Congressional District candidate Eugene DePasquale is on the air with his first campaign ad, a biographical spot called “Restaurant,” that punches up his blue-collar roots as the son of a Pittsburgh bar owner.

“I grew up in a bar. My family was working class,” DePasquale says in the 30-second spot filmed inside a bar that should be plenty familiar to thirsty central Pennsylvanians — the Sturges Speakeasy on Forster Street in Harrisburg, across the street from the Capitol.

“When I wasn’t bussing tables, I umpired Little League games and worked as a janitor to pay for college,” he continues, wiping down the bar and pouring suds. “I learned a lot of life lessons from the people in my neighborhood.”

DePasquale told the Capital-Star that his family owned a bar in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood.

It was initially called Allie’s, before it changed its name to the Panther Hollow Inn in 1981. As the name suggests, the bar sat between the campuses of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. It has since closed, his campaign said.

The spot will start airing today in the greater Harrisburg media market, which includes all three counties in the district: Cumberland, Dauphin and York counties, and run through Election Day.

DePasquale’s campaign would only say it was “investing six figures a week,” on the spot, which will air on broadcast and cable outlets in the district, as well as online.

Congressman Scott Perry, R-10th District, answers a question at a Hummelstown public meeting with constituents on July 30th, 2019. (Capital-Star photo by Stephen Caruso)

While it doesn’t say it out loud, or mention his name, the ad feels like a deliberate attempt to neutralize some of the working class cred claimed by GOP incumbent U.S. Rep. Scott Perry. While overwhelmingly suburban, the district also takes in some of the more rural and blue-collar precincts of Cumberland and York counties.

In a 2018 interview with PennLivePerry said he grew up the son of a single mother (who eventually remarried); had no relationship to speak of with his birth father, and grew up in a house without electricity or indoor plumbing. In fact, “for a period of several years, Perry has [2018] told campaign audiences, the family lived using a generator for power, taking their water from a pump, and making full use of an outhouse on the property,” PennLive reported.

Read the full story

Don’t miss stories like this Click for EP Blog updates

In first ad, Dem DePasquale wants you to go where everybody knows his name Read More »