The New Jersey Business & Industry Association (NJBIA) has requested the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to reconsider its proposed changes to the Discharge, Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC) regulations. NJBIA argues that some amendments are unnecessary, overly burdensome, and likely to create confusion.
In a letter dated July 18, NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer Ray Cantor expressed that while New Jersey’s business community supports the safe operation of major facilities, regulatory requirements should not be duplicative or impose undue burdens and costs.
Cantor highlighted that Appendix A of DEP’s proposed rules adds 263 new chemical substances to the existing list of hazardous substances. This includes changes in the submission, approval, renewal, and certification requirements for DPCC plans.
“Appendix A already includes 1,700 substances,” Cantor wrote. “Of the 263 additional substances, 159 are perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), which would be added because they appear on the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of reportable substances under Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) regulations.”
Cantor argued that TRI regulations differ in purpose from New Jersey’s DPCC/DCR regulations. “The TRI is a publicly available database containing information characterizing possible releases of toxic substances. Data used to quantify releases reported to TRI are often speculative or inaccurate,” he said.
He noted that DEP’s DPCC regulations require detailed information about each regulated substance's chemical hazards, toxicity, environmental fate and transport physical and chemical properties. “Such information simply does not exist for the vast majority of the 263 additional substances,” Cantor stated.
NJBIA recommends DEP reevaluate the list of additional substances and include only those with widely available detailed data on chemical hazards and other relevant properties.
Additionally, NJBIA criticized the climate resiliency plan requirements in the proposed rules. While it is appropriate for DEP to mandate preparations for extreme weather events like hurricanes and nor’easters, Cantor found it confusing to require facilities to plan for speculative sea level rise scenarios extending to 2100.
“Since DPCC plans will be renewed every five years … what is to be gained from having plans predict and plan for SLR over the next 75 years?” Cantor asked. He added that this requirement would unnecessarily increase costs without benefiting state residents.
Cantor also urged DEP to establish a “de minimis exception” regarding storage container sizes under DPCC regulations. He pointed out that ambiguity over container size creates regulatory uncertainty: “Does the rule extend to a 55-gallon drum, a gallon container, a quart jar?”
He emphasized it was unlikely that spills from small containers would pose significant risks warranting regulation under DPCC guidelines.
To read NJBIA's complete letter to DEP, visit their official website.
---
