1 / 12

Atlantic Builders Convention Legal Trends – Part II Environmental Law

Dive into the complexities of the SRRA and LSRP regulations, learn about timeframes, guidance, and recent legal cases shaping environmental law practices. Gain insights on hiring LSRPs, licensing standards, regulatory timeframes, and remediation priority systems.

glennr
Download Presentation

Atlantic Builders Convention Legal Trends – Part II Environmental Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Atlantic Builders ConventionLegal Trends – Part IIEnvironmental Law Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) and Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs) March 29, 2012 Presented by David Restaino, Esq.

  2. SRRA Overview • SRRA Adopted May 2009 • Rules – final rules expected soon • Guidance “Exception” • Substantive SRRA Provisions • Use of LSRPs mandatory (May 7, 2012) • Mandatory timeframes & direct oversight • “Affirmative” duty to remediate • Remedial Priority System (RPS) “scores”

  3. LSRPs • Licensed Site Remediation Professionals • Best Professional Judgment • LSRP Licensing Board • Board determines final licensing standards • LSRPs Control Cleanup, Not DEP • Quicker Cleanups ? • Issuance of RAOs and not NFAs • DEP audits select sites / select LSRPs • Three-year review period

  4. Hiring the Firm,Getting the LSRP • How to oversee the LSRP • Hire two? • Hire one LSRP to oversee a non-LSRP? • What if you are buyer, and seller has LSRP obligation? • Insurance • Three-year review period • What if the LSRP switches firms?

  5. Timeframes & Guidance • Regulatory and Mandatory Timeframes • Timely completion of the remedial investigation • “Compliance assistance alert” letters • Remind responsible parties to submit required reports by 3-1-2012 (1st "mandatory" remediation time frame established by SRRA) • Deadline applies if began remediation before 3-1-2010 • Filing may include: Receptor Evaluation, Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Remediation Reporting Form, etc. • Direct DEP Oversight • Immediate Environmental Concerns (IECs) • Guidance, Guidance, Guidance

  6. Current Status of Guidance -Over 40 Guidance Documents • Clean Fill / Alternate Fill • Historic Fill • Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC) • Monitored Natural Attenuation • Preliminary Assessment • Presumptive and Alternative Remedy • Vapor Intrusion • Funds and Grants • Classification Exception Area (CEA) • Public Notification • Remedial Action Permits (soils, groundwater) • Issuance of Response Action Outcome (RAO)

  7. Remedial Priority System (RPS) • N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.16 • Ranks sites best to worst, categories 1 to 5 • To be used for DEP direct oversight • All sites ranked except: • homeowner heating oil tanks of 2,000-gallons or less • sites for which the DEP’s Bureau of Operations and Maintenance Monitoring is overseeing long-term operations • sites with unknown sources

  8. RPS Process • Responsible party receives DEP letter with score • Computer model that utilizes geographic data bases and layers, receptor information and site specific data • Wells, pathways and receptors • “Surrogate value” when no data available • 60 days to provide feedback on score • Final scores released to public Fall 2012

  9. “No Further Action” Case • I/M/O Crompton Colors, Dkt. No. A-5703-08T1 (App. Div., Oct. 27, 2011) • Potential vapor intrusion (V.I.) on adjacent site • 1996 and 2002 NFAs rescinded in attempt to gain V.I. study • Can DEP rescind tenant’s NFA to gain V.I. study, when the contamination is from historic fill & regional groundwater plume rather than the tenant’s activities? • Appellant’s request for hearing was denied below

  10. Crompton Colors • Appellate Division holding: • Limits decision to request for administrative hearing to challenge factual basis for DEP’s decision rescinding NFA and directing submission of a workplan • Rejects DEP characterization of its actions as “mere requests” • Because DEP directives cannot be ignored, a hearing is required • Compare: Sackett v. EPA, U.S. Sup. Ct. March 21, 2012

  11. Natural Resource Damages (NRDs) • DEP v. Essex Chemical Corp. (App. Div., March 20, 2012) • Defendant spent $5 million to remediate • Site Remediation Program was “very pleased” with defendant’s remediation efforts and did not consider 20-year remediation to be unreasonable in time • Affirms trial court: Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof • Plaintiff’s experts’ testimony deemed not credible as to $5.7MM primary restoration damages (seeking a new cleanup plan and costs for same) • Plaintiff’s experts’ testimony deemed not credible as to $2.3MM compensatory restoration damages (seeking $ to purchase raw land) • Improper to use asking prices and not sales prices • Improper to use a 25-mile radius from site • Properties chosen were not comparable to the injured land

  12. Contact Information David Restaino, Esq. 609.895.6701 drestaino@foxrothschild.com

More Related