There are very few businesses, or even homeowners, who have not endured an indoor air quality (IAQ) situation at least once. Who hasn't detected an odor they could not quickly identify? How many people have developed an irritating cough that could not be explained? In my experience, the majority of complaints prove to be unassociated with indoor air quality. Notwithstanding this fact, owners or managers of businesses are obligated to investigate when an employee registers a complaint. After all, we live in a litigious society. Failure to take appropriate and sensible measures to investigate a complaint can strengthen a complainant's case.
Removal of impacted soil from your property is often the easiest remedial method. This method involves four separate processes: excavation of the impacted material, loading it into trucks, transporting it to a disposal facility, and finally disposing it. The ease with which this is accomplished is a function of two primary variables: the intrinsic nature, magnitude and complexity of your situation and the quality of the project and site management brought to bear by your consultant. While every project needs to be examined to determine the remedial approach that makes the most sense, in many cases, simple excavation and disposal will be the method of choice.
What happens when your consultant disagrees with the findings of another consultant? More specifically, how do findings differ in the first place? After all, the environmental science practiced by ESA is normally based upon empirical data and our specific experience as applied to similar situations. Therefore, shouldn't ESA's data and reports speak for themselves? And if the opposing consultant also provides services in the same fashion, shouldn't their findings also speak for themselves? How can ambiguity exist? It is truly a vexing conundrum when the conclusions of one consultant can conflict so strongly with that of another.
On March 21, 2013, an Appellate Division panel upheld the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's controversial new Waiver Rule. NJDEP's Waiver Rule tacitly acknowledges for the first time ever that, in rare circumstances, some environmental regulations may be overly burdensome. Specifically, NJDEP may waive strict compliance with an NJDEP rule when a basis for such a waiver exists.
This e-newsletter addresses the current status of both the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (HDSRF grants and brownfield grants) and the UST Petroleum Closure, Upgrade & Site Remediation Fund (UST grants). Note: These programs are in flux. As NJDEP or EDA information is updated, ESA will provide notices so you have the latest information on these essential programs.
This article briefly addresses what the law requires and more important, from a consultant's point of view, the practical aspects of dealing with incidents. What should you do immediately upon discovering an incident? What should you do if after ignoring an incident you wish to the address it now? And what should a prospective purchaser of a property (commercial, industrial, or residential) do prior to closing on a deal?
What is mold, how does it grow, and what should you do if you encounter mold? Without a doubt, some mold situations present genuine health issues. That being the case, how can the lay person make intelligent decisions about what to do?
An Environmental "Line in the Sand" is a metaphor for distinguishing between impacts created by a tenant and those that may be vestigial. When a tenant moves out, you do not want to engage in a contentious disagreement about potential impacts and who is responsible for addressing those impacts because such situations can become litigious. Thus, ESA offers the following pre-tenancy strategy designed to protect landlords.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has instituted selective waivers to NJDEP regulations for the benefit of the regulated community. Although not a carte blanche waiver, the waiver rule is nonetheless a boon for those to whom it applies. This essay summarizes and describes the key points of the NJDEP waiver rule.
The cost of environmental remediation services is a serious issue, especially in these harsh economic times. Regardless of how environmentally conscientious someone may be, our clients are always concerned about cost... and they want ESA to do a good job for the least cost possible. Knowing this, we do whatever we can to help each client obtain Other People's Money (OPM).
The full scope and cost of environmental remediation are sometimes difficult to predict and can be expensive. Depending upon site conditions, costs can accelerate over the course of a project. In fact, even when ESA implements a remedial project with exquisite precision and the utmost frugality, some clients are unhappy. Occasionally, I am asked, "Why is site remediation so darn expensive?" This month's e-newsletter addresses this sensitive and very important subject.
This essay defines the concept of Due Diligence in the context of environmental consulting, explains the disparity in price that is often encountered in these projects, and describes how to prepare when a property is about to undergo Due Diligence.
Technical Requirements for Site Rememdiation ("Tech Regs") define the "what, where, when, how, and how many" in almost any conceivable situation. But despite the Tech Regs specificity, there still remains ample latitude for consultants who advocate on behalf of their clients.
ESA Principal Stephen Fauer predicts industry-wide price increases in the wake of permanent Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) licensing.
Three rules to determine what constitutes good environmental consulting advice.
As the May 7, 2012 deadline nears, there may not be enough LSRPs to go around. Here's why...