Identical bills authorizing the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to license environmental engineers to oversee the cleanup of many of the state's 20,000 contaminated sites are scheduled for votes in the state Senate and Assembly on Monday, March 16, 2009.
Following the lead of a highly successful program in
Massachusetts, Senator Bob Smith's S-1897 would establish a program under which Licensed Site Professionals, hired by private parties responsible for the polluted properties, would develop remediation plans and supervise the cleanup work. Their activities would be supervised by the DEP and subject to strict standards and timetables.For years, the number of contaminated sites in the state has continued to grow. That's either been the result of slow-moving or overzealous DEP site managers or foot-dragging by private parties responsible for the cleanups. Or maybe a bit of both. It depends on who you ask.
Smith's bill should make it easier for motivated parties to get their sites cleaned up and recycled for new uses. Many of these so-called brownfield sites are in urban areas where revenue-strapped governments are desperate for new ratables. The LSP program should help.
The state's major environmental organizations have fought the bill at every turn. They claim it will allow the fox to watch over the hen house. But they've offered no reasonable alternative. Without an LSP program, the backlog of contaminated properties will only continue to grow.
Monday's floor debate on the bill should be interesting.
A companion bill, A-2962 (McKeon), is in place for a vote in the Assembly but no date for that vote has been announced.
To learn more about the issue, try the links below:
NJ Licensed Site Professional bills advance
NJ Licensed Site Professional bill's encore
Will New Jersey see Licensed Site Professionals?
Op-Ed: LSP stands for ‘Lets Stay Polluted’
Op-Ed: New Jersey needs licensed site professionals
Editorial: An imperfect but needed solution
N.J. looks to outsource waste site cleanup
Bills aim to speed enviro-cleanups in New Jersey
Hiring a Licensed Site Professional in Massachusetts
Licensed Site Professional Association (Web Site)
***********************************************************
Try our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics, free for 30 days
************************************************************
This bill will do little to provide truly efficient and effective cleanups. For example, the LSP provides for greater protections to residences, schools and day care facilities, that protection will likely be illusionary. The bill provides that if it is impractical the RP does not have to comply with the enhanced protections. In Mass. less than 1/3 of the sites that should be cleanup to the unrestricted standard. The remaining 2/3 of the sites, the LSP finds that it is impractical and the sites are remediated to a lesser standard.
ReplyDeleteAnother very major issue is that once the LSP finds the site cleanup up, the LSP will issue a RAO. Once the RAO is issued the law will provide the RP with a covenant not to sue. This covenant not to sue is by operation of law without any audits by the State. When the Mass. program demonstrates that 50% of the RAO should not have been issued, one can see the problem. What happens to these sites once homes, schools and offices are built on still contaminated properties.
I believe that regulating the cleanup professionals is a very good idea. I also believe that allowing LSP to handle some of the least risk sites is a good idea. Under the LSP bill DEP will not retain oversight on any site for many years. This benefits no one. Especially if we will have to go back to "cleaned" sites and do more to actually remediate them. A more detailed critique of the LSP bill including New Jersey Environmental Lobby's written comments can be found at http://fplegal.com/wordpress/?cat=5.
As a former Auditor at the MassDEP, I'd just caution people on one item Mike Pisauro states here. I'm not sure exactly where he got the 50% of "Mass. program demonstrates that 50% of the RAO should not have been issued..." infers that there was risk associated with 50% of the closed sites. This is not an accurate inference. We've found few sites where this is the case. There are many reasons why an Audit might result in violations, many having nothing to do with risk. I also call into question the allegation that 1/3 of the sites have been cleaned up to unrestricted standards in the same context as schools, residents, etc. The protections alloted those stakeholders through the requirements are quite simple and must be met. He might be speaking to use restrictions associated with soils under a residential foundation. However, any straight face test should reveal that no child or adult will be playing with soil buried 8 feet down and directly below a foundation holding the entire weight of a house. This type of soil should not require meeting an "unrestricted standard" and was not required by the MassDEP even prior to privatizing the system. So, to allege this is a problem and it is somehow associated with privatizing the system is inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteAs a NJDEP licensed subsurface evaluator working in the consulting industry for 15 years, i see nothing but the same old incompetence from the NJDEP and the Legislature with regard to this bill. Blame the regulated community for draging their feet. What about having to wait 2,3,4 years for the NJDEP case managers to review a report (prior to the budget cuts), waiting for a response that never comes to a case manager when you leave a voice mail, email, or even worse, not being able to reach the case manager because their voicemail is full....these are servants of the state!! Not to mention the inability of the NJDEP to employ common sense for how to apply their overly strict regulations, treating a residential fuel oil leak the same way a pcb or gasoline discharge is treated. The new, streamlined UHOT program is a joke, now having to wait 4-5 (and growing!!) months for a report to be reviewed...only to get dinged by a junior staffer for a minor detail that was never brought up by the older more experienced DEP personnel. There is a total lack of uniformity between the northern and southern field offices as to how the regulations are applied....Causing the consultant to not have a clue what the appropriate scope of work should be...why can one site in snj get an NFA for doing a,b,c and the same site in nnj have to do a,b,c,d,e,and f? All this, not to mention the LSP will be exposed on both ends..their client and the NJDEP for civil judgements, making them an enemy of both parties. The client will look to terminate their relationship or sue because the LSP is taking a c.y.a. position by requiring more investigation and the NJDEP will impose severe penalties if they deem the LSPs work to be lacking in spite of their best intentions....screwing them out of a career!!!!!....sign up for this disaster of a program to provide the DEP a scape goat and assume all the liability..and a brand new revenue stream....no thanks...I'm out.
ReplyDelete