05-03-2007 Minutes

Meeting Minutes

May 3, 2007

CONTAMINATED SITES SUBCOMMITTEE
Meeting May 3, 2007
7:00 P.M.
Community Center

Present: Deborah RoyRoberts, Barbara Halpern, Tina Toy, Kevin Kelton, Peter Petrowich, Suzanne McCarthy, Sgt. Rick O’Brien, Frank Scavelli, Ken Gallagher.

Absent: Jay Mounier

Guests: Norm Rogers VP CES, Michael Dupras CES, Karen Kloos DEP Community Relations, Dr. Judith Shaw DEP Manager Community Relations

Introductions of members and guests.

Dr. Judith Shaw began by stating that there are 16,700 case files being handled within the DEP with roughly 220 case managers managing these files. Of those case files approximately 300 sites are publicly funded. Public funded sites are likely to have fact sheets with overviews, summary results and future actions available to the public which may also involve public meetings and notices, residential sampling events, site highlights and sites in the news. Of the remaining cases approximately 11,000 cases at any given time involve the oversight of residential Underground Storage Tanks (UST’s). In an effort to free the DEP up to handle other more important cases, the DEP is considering shifting the responsibility of UST’s from the DEP to the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks (BUST) contractors. The BUST contractors will oversee the clean up and the DEP will review the reports and then issue a No Further Action (NFA).

The subcommittee members requested site summaries from the DEP similar to those for the public funded sites for insertion into the townships new web page. Shaw said having site summaries on the web page is a good idea, however, if every municipality wanted to do what we were doing, Shaw felt it would be an impossible task with the current workload and manpower at the DEP. The DEP is however making some progress with shifting from paper files to computer files and has hired 13 new case managers and will be hiring 24 more in addition to summer interns.

Shaw felt there might be a middle ground with getting answers and updates on sites from the case managers with out over burdening their already heavy workload. She suggested that the public and committee members could contact the responsible parties rather than the DEP to receive an update on sites. The responsible parties are required to submit a Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) to the DEP. Often times the summary plans are done by environmental consultants hired by the responsible parties. Dataminer does not indicate who the responsible party is. If the responsible party is unknown to the requesting party then the DEP case manager can be contacted for that information or an OPRA request can be done.

Norman Rogers, VP of Consulting Engineer Services spoke up and said an environmental consultant working on behalf of the responsible party could be prevented from discussing his clients’ case with the public due to confidentiality reasons. Deborah RoyRoberts, Chairperson of the subcommittee expressed reluctance to Shaw on contacting the responsible party for a summary and status on their own site. Deborah felt that the responsible party may decline to cooperate or information provided may be biased. Deborah felt that the case was assigned by the DEP to investigate and in turn should be the one responsible for the oversight of those sites. Ms. Shaw did agreed and said that Community Relations and the Case Managers job is to talk to the public about the sites and provide a status however, the case manager may not know the status of the case. Several options were discussed on how to obtain site summaries through case managers, responsible parties, environmental consultants and doing an OPRA. Some cases may ave responsible parties that may not want to remediate but are low risk. Cases as these may sit on the list for long periods of time. Enforcement action is taken when cases are big risks. Local Municipalities may ask owners why they are not remediating.

Judith Shaw suggested that the Township Clerk establish a permanent DEP file for each case regarding all correspondences received through the township such as remediation actions, notices of violations and the like.

Karen Kloos spoke of the remediation investigation at Kidde Kollege/Accutherm site involving a geophysical sampling to be done on May 7, 2007. Tina Toy expressed concern that the parents do not want the building “knocked down” until a risk evaluation was done. Tina suggested test sampling to be done in various settings for example, when the heat is on, create activity in building before testing to simulate how it would have been when the children were present in the building post July 2006. Tina also asked how the web page would be updated. Karen Kloos indicated that she is the person who has been updating the Franklin Twp. web site every two weeks on site status for Kidde Kollege, McCandless and Garoppo’s. Deborah explained that the subcommittee’s web page links to the DEP for Known Contaminated Sites will be updated as the DEP updates their files.

Meeting ended with a discussion on a future meeting with Shaw and Kloos to discuss site summaries.

Documents

The following documents were provided by Dr. Judith Shaw and Karen Kloos:

A pending law known as the “Municipal Notification Law”, which requires notice to municipalities concerning contaminated sites will be registered into law in the next several months. The Municipal Notification Law supplements the “Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (as C.58.10B-24.1 et seq.) and requires any remediating party to notify the municipal clerk wherein the site is located at the remedial action phase of remediation. This requirement applies to both responsible (private parties and the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. See attachment.

An existing law known as “New Residential Construction Off-Site Conditions Disclosure Act” (L.1995,c.253;C.46:3C-1 et seq.) was signed in September 12, 1995. The law requires that lists of certain “off-site conditions” in the municipality, which may affect the value of the newly constructed residential real estate, be available at each Municipal Clerk’s office within each Municipality. See attachment.

Grace Period Rule Guidance
The Department has amended subchapter 10 of the Department Oversight of the Remediation of Contaminated Sites Rule, N.J.A.C. 7:26C (Oversight Rule), to set forth penalties for violations of portions of the Underground Storage Tank Rule, N.J.A.C. 7:14B (UST Rule), the Industrial Site Recovery Act Rule, N.J.A.C. 26B (ISRA Rule), the Oversight Rule, and the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26E (Technical Requirements). Through the amendments the Department has identified these violations as either minor or non-minor in accordance N.J.S.A. 13:1D-125 et seq, commonly known as the Grace Period Law. In addition, the Department has amended Subchapter 3 of the Oversight Rules regarding the Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) application and termination process, establishing a period of time, consistent with the grace period applicable for non-MOA cases, for the correction of deficiencies prior to MOA termination. The rule adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on September 18, 2006, and the rule became effective on that date. See Attachment.

**Meeting Minutes**
May 3, 2007 CONTAMINATED SITES SUBCOMMITTEE Meeting May 3, 2007 7:00 P.M. Community Center Present: Deborah RoyRoberts, Barbara Halpern, Tina Toy, Kevin Kelton, Peter Petrowich, Suzanne McCarthy, Sgt. Rick O’Brien, Frank Scavelli, Ken Gallagher. Absent: Jay Mounier Guests: Norm Rogers VP CES, Michael Dupras CES, Karen Kloos DEP Community Relations, Dr. Judith Shaw DEP Manager Community Relations Introductions of members and guests. Dr. Judith Shaw began by stating that there are 16,700 case files being handled within the DEP with roughly 220 case managers managing these files. Of those case files approximately 300 sites are publicly funded. Public funded sites are likely to have fact sheets with overviews, summary results and future actions available to the public which may also involve public meetings and notices, residential sampling events, site highlights and sites in the news. Of the remaining cases approximately 11,000 cases at any given time involve the oversight of residential Underground Storage Tanks (UST’s). In an effort to free the DEP up to handle other more important cases, the DEP is considering shifting the responsibility of UST’s from the DEP to the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks (BUST) contractors. The BUST contractors will oversee the clean up and the DEP will review the reports and then issue a No Further Action (NFA). The subcommittee members requested site summaries from the DEP similar to those for the public funded sites for insertion into the townships new web page. Shaw said having site summaries on the web page is a good idea, however, if every municipality wanted to do what we were doing, Shaw felt it would be an impossible task with the current workload and manpower at the DEP. The DEP is however making some progress with shifting from paper files to computer files and has hired 13 new case managers and will be hiring 24 more in addition to summer interns. Shaw felt there might be a middle ground with getting answers and updates on sites from the case managers with out over burdening their already heavy workload. She suggested that the public and committee members could contact the responsible parties rather than the DEP to receive an update on sites. The responsible parties are required to submit a Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) to the DEP. Often times the summary plans are done by environmental consultants hired by the responsible parties. Dataminer does not indicate who the responsible party is. If the responsible party is unknown to the requesting party then the DEP case manager can be contacted for that information or an OPRA request can be done. Norman Rogers, VP of Consulting Engineer Services spoke up and said an environmental consultant working on behalf of the responsible party could be prevented from discussing his clients’ case with the public due to confidentiality reasons. Deborah RoyRoberts, Chairperson of the subcommittee expressed reluctance to Shaw on contacting the responsible party for a summary and status on their own site. Deborah felt that the responsible party may decline to cooperate or information provided may be biased. Deborah felt that the case was assigned by the DEP to investigate and in turn should be the one responsible for the oversight of those sites. Ms. Shaw did agreed and said that Community Relations and the Case Managers job is to talk to the public about the sites and provide a status however, the case manager may not know the status of the case. Several options were discussed on how to obtain site summaries through case managers, responsible parties, environmental consultants and doing an OPRA. Some cases may ave responsible parties that may not want to remediate but are low risk. Cases as these may sit on the list for long periods of time. Enforcement action is taken when cases are big risks. Local Municipalities may ask owners why they are not remediating. Judith Shaw suggested that the Township Clerk establish a permanent DEP file for each case regarding all correspondences received through the township such as remediation actions, notices of violations and the like. Karen Kloos spoke of the remediation investigation at Kidde Kollege/Accutherm site involving a geophysical sampling to be done on May 7, 2007. Tina Toy expressed concern that the parents do not want the building “knocked down” until a risk evaluation was done. Tina suggested test sampling to be done in various settings for example, when the heat is on, create activity in building before testing to simulate how it would have been when the children were present in the building post July 2006. Tina also asked how the web page would be updated. Karen Kloos indicated that she is the person who has been updating the Franklin Twp. web site every two weeks on site status for Kidde Kollege, McCandless and Garoppo’s. Deborah explained that the subcommittee’s web page links to the DEP for Known Contaminated Sites will be updated as the DEP updates their files. Meeting ended with a discussion on a future meeting with Shaw and Kloos to discuss site summaries. Documents The following documents were provided by Dr. Judith Shaw and Karen Kloos: A pending law known as the “Municipal Notification Law”, which requires notice to municipalities concerning contaminated sites will be registered into law in the next several months. The Municipal Notification Law supplements the “Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (as C.58.10B-24.1 et seq.) and requires any remediating party to notify the municipal clerk wherein the site is located at the remedial action phase of remediation. This requirement applies to both responsible (private parties and the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. See attachment. An existing law known as “New Residential Construction Off-Site Conditions Disclosure Act” (L.1995,c.253;C.46:3C-1 et seq.) was signed in September 12, 1995. The law requires that lists of certain “off-site conditions” in the municipality, which may affect the value of the newly constructed residential real estate, be available at each Municipal Clerk’s office within each Municipality. See attachment. Grace Period Rule Guidance The Department has amended subchapter 10 of the Department Oversight of the Remediation of Contaminated Sites Rule, N.J.A.C. 7:26C (Oversight Rule), to set forth penalties for violations of portions of the Underground Storage Tank Rule, N.J.A.C. 7:14B (UST Rule), the Industrial Site Recovery Act Rule, N.J.A.C. 26B (ISRA Rule), the Oversight Rule, and the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26E (Technical Requirements). Through the amendments the Department has identified these violations as either minor or non-minor in accordance N.J.S.A. 13:1D-125 et seq, commonly known as the Grace Period Law. In addition, the Department has amended Subchapter 3 of the Oversight Rules regarding the Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) application and termination process, establishing a period of time, consistent with the grace period applicable for non-MOA cases, for the correction of deficiencies prior to MOA termination. The rule adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on September 18, 2006, and the rule became effective on that date. See Attachment.

This page revised: 07/11/2007