New Jersey Residential Underground Storage Tanks: Contractor Tips Volume 1: “Contracts”

Last month, Cardinal Environmental Consulting discussed the topic of Unregulated Heating Oil Tanks (UHOT) in New Jersey, and the forthcoming legislation that will allow for small amounts of contamination to be left behind (see New Jersey Unregulated Heating Oil Tanks & The Deed Notice “Light”), but for this post, we decided it was important to list some key points for homeowners to consider when having an Underground Storage Tank (UST) removed and some tips to be aware of when hiring a contractor:                                                                            

• Ensure that the UST contractor you’re hiring is certified & insured…and ask for copies.
• Ensure that the UST contractor calls for a utility mark-out (and get a copy of the mark-out ticket). It’s the law in New Jersey.
• Let your contractor know where all of the “private” utilities are on your property beforehand, including irrigation and electric lines if you know where they are.  Contractors are not (and shouldn’t be) responsible for unknown utilities…but they are very skilled and avoiding them if they are told ahead of time.
• Read the fine print at the end of the contract.  Often times a residential UST contractor will provide a price to coordinate, remove, and dispose of the UST only.  If contaminated soils are identified, it will be an added cost to remediate.  For example: If the contract price you received says $5,000…that doesn’t usually include the excavation, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soils.  However, ask what will happen if contaminated soils are discovered, and discuss the price per ton if soils need to be excavated.  This generally ranges between $75 and $95 per ton. 
• Analysis costs for soil samples are often not included. Waste classification (WC) samples are sometimes collected, but the actual analysis may be an added cost. Discuss sampling and analysis prior to selecting your contractor. Note: the WC samples are used to let a disposal facility know what they are “accepting.” 

And last, but not least:

• Have the contractor include the cost to include mats or other means of protecting your lawn when the work is being performed. This includes keeping the removed UST on heavy plastic after it’s pulled.  It’s understandable that there may be some minor disturbances to the grass and/or ground surface, but there’s no reason for two (2) foot deep ruts!

As we’ve stressed in the past, there are many good, reputable environmental consulting and contracting firms that do honest work and put in the effort to minimize the stress of removing USTs, however, you should also understand the proposed scope of work and costs, prior to signing any contract.  Understand what you’re paying for and what the expectations are.  Stay tuned for future discussions on this topic as there are plenty of items to cover!

At Cardinal Environmental, we have the experience to get you through your remedial situation and provide realistic costs up-front, regardless of the size, or scope.  Additionally, with over two decades in the industry, we have established relationships in the environmental community to get your project on a cost-effective remedial course that meets your long-term goals. For further information on how we can assist you with Underground Storage Tank solutions and/or LSRP services, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

Environmental Pricing: Lowest Price & The Race to the Bottom

In the Mid-Atlantic area, there are many good, reputable environmental consulting firms that do honest work and put in the effort to solve the complex situations that we’re often presented with…and given the industrial & manufacturing history here (and geology), they can be challenging, but offering the lowest price is a race to the bottom that often leads to disaster and soured client-consultant relationships.

This is very common in public bidding opportunities (e.g. Request for Proposals), and is not limited to environmental consultants.  The success rate is generally pretty high when going with a lowest price strategy; although many towns, cities, municipalities have the authority to pass on the lowest bid if they deem a respondent to be more qualified or better suited to achieve the desired results…at an acceptable cost.  It also means that they can select the incumbent if the price is right, thus making their selection process that much easier (and truly minimizing the opportunities for other small businesses).  Cardinal Environmental covered this topic in our January blog post “Should Small Businesses Pursue Requests for Proposals?,” but the same principles hold true when local businesses are searching for a reputable environmental consultant to help them through a difficult situation, whether it’s due diligence, an Underground Storage Tank (UST) removal, or Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) services.

Experienced firms typically understand that communicating a realistic, or probable outcome to a prospective client along with estimated, and realistic projected costs increases the trust-factor, and the perceived value you bring to the table.  Conversely, there are also many firms (experienced and inexperienced) that will provide a low bid or low cost (with too much fine print in their contracts), simply to secure the work.  Unfortunately, a complex Site’s difficulties usually surface over a short time-period leaving the consultant and client scrambling to identify how much more money is needed, how much longer, etc.  This tactic ultimately impacts the public perception of the environmental consulting industry, but does that mean you should always throw out the lowest price?  Probably not.  It means that you should understand the proposed scope of work, prior to signing that contract, which goes back to a familiar theme that we stress at Cardinal Environmental: effective communication.  Understand what you’re paying for and what the expectations are!

At Cardinal Environmental, we have the experience to get you through your remedial situation and provide realistic costs up-front, regardless of the size, or scope.  Additionally, with over two decades in the industry, we have established relationships in the environmental community to get your project on a cost-effective remedial course that meets your long-term goals. For further information on how we can assist you with environmental solutions and/or LSRP services, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

Responsible Party Pain Points

As a follow-up to our previous blog topics, including “Environmental Consulting and the Consumer Perspective” and “How Much and How Long Will it Take,” it’s invaluable to understand the pain points of your client, especially if they happen to be a responsible party.  For this week, we’ll look at a few key issues that need to be understood early in the remedial process…aside from a technical strategy or pathway to remediation. Every situation and every client is different, but let’s expose a few common pain points and some simple remedies.

Pain Point # 1:  Cost

Every environmental consultant should understand early in their career that on most occasions, environmental liabilities usually hit your clients’ bottom line, and the lack of an in-depth understanding of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for your specific project can lead to delays, and you guessed it…cost overruns.  Clients don’t like to hear that a project is over-budget, but this pain point can be alleviated if project costs and potential outcomes are discussed beforehand.  It’s difficult for a client to hear that project costs could increase 3x; however, they’ll appreciate your candor if this discussion takes place sooner (i.e. at the beginning of a project) rather than later.   One last item:  never surprise your client with last minute costs on an invoice.  Nobody likes surprises!

Pain Point # 2:  Time

While project cost may always be the top item, time or project duration is not too far behind. While certain tasks may only take a few days to complete, others can take significant amounts of time.  The only solution to this pain point is to spend a little extra time during the initial phases of the project, or even while generating a proposal, to prepare a schedule.  It may only be preliminary, but it will serve as a starting point from which you can provide your client with a “realistic” timeframe for when you will complete a task or project.  Similar to pain point # 1, your client will appreciate your professional opinion, even though it may sting for a moment (if not longer).  Word to the wise: If you believe that you can complete something in two (2) weeks…add on an extra week, and then complete the project ahead of schedule.

Pain Point # 3:  Disruption of Operations / “Inconvenience”

Don’t be fooled.  If there are access issues at your project site which require numerous things to be moved around, or re-located, and your client has to devote resources to accommodate your efforts, it’s an inconvenience.  If your client has to inform staff that they can’t use a portion of a parking lot, so you can conduct a subsurface investigation, it’s an inconvenience.  Sometimes this is unavoidable; however, similar to the prior pain points, the easiest solution is to discuss the options with your client in advance.  Are there alternative locations? Is there a specific time that your client would be more amenable to?  Weekends? Sure this may increase costs, but your client may be willing to accept the additional fees. As a consultant it is imperative that the client’s concerns be addressed, and that we work to make their job a little easier by demonstrating flexibility, and a willingness to minimize disruption to their operations.

Stay tuned for future updates and musings from Cardinal Environmental, and we hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful.  For furher information, please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com .

New Jersey Unregulated Heating Oil Tanks & The Deed Notice “Light”

There are essentially no bigger headaches when purchasing or selling a residential property, than the infamous Underground Storage Tank (UST).  Whether identified intentionally or unintentionally, the presence of a UST stirs up confusion, and anxiety for all parties involved…realtors included.  Of course, someone always knows “a guy” that can take care of the situation and makes things right, so to speak, but be on the lookout for firms or individuals that are not certified.  In accordance with the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act and UST Rules (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-21, N.J.A.C. 7:14B-16.1)-Individuals or business firms providing services for unregulated heating oil tanks must be certified.  In addition, UST work must be completed in accordance with the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code (NJUCC), and local permits are required prior to the removal of a tank.  Simply put…don’t let the guy, who knows a guy with a backhoe, perform any work on your property without the proper credentials and permits. 

For many practitioners in the environmental consulting world, and the Unregulated Heating Oil Tank (UHOT) community, small heating oil tanks have the potential to cause incredibly costly headaches with remediation fees skyrocketing to well over $100,000 in many cases, just to scrape out every last bit of contaminated soil.  Oftentimes, the chase takes you under a house and structural supports are required, which just adds to the anxiety of a homeowner.  Fortunately, some insurance carriers pick up the tab, but some don’t, and some stick their head in the sand (which is the topic for another day); however, New Jersey is in the process of proposing new rules and guidance that may offer an alternative:  the Deed Notice “Light”

The new rule (“N.J.A.C. 7:26F”) has been in the hopper for several years and is slated to be proposed in the next year. Once promulgated, it would allow for small amounts of residual contamination to remain in-place…with no restrictions and a No Further Action (NFA) issued by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).  Small amounts means ≤ 15 cubic yards (e.g.  +/- 9ft. long x 7.5 ft. deep x 6ft. wide).  In addition, when contamination is not accessible a homeowner will be allowed to pursue a UHOT Deed Notice or the Deed Notice “Light.”  Of course there are many caveats that would need consideration, but this option gives the homeowner an opportunity to put the brakes on “chasing” contamination and end the remediation, with no requirement for NJDEP Remedial Action Permits or future inspections and/or certifications.  It’s estimated that the Deed Notice “Light” would be a less than desirable outcome because it will reduce the value of a property, but when faced with steep remedial expenses, it’s a viable option.  

When the new rule comes out and these options are available for consideration, do yourself a favor and utilize the services of experienced and certified consultants and contractors to help you make a sound decision, and above all else…make sure you don’t use the guy who knows a guy that has a backhoe.  Odds are they are only going to compound the situation. Nobody needs that.

Stay tuned for future updates and musings, as well as others, from Cardinal Environmental. We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com, or www.cardinallsrp.com.  

Environmental Consulting and “The Consumer Perspective” Vol. I

There are many, many variables in the environmental consulting world, some of which can be highly complex and some simply incomprehensible.  Conversely, there are too many things that consultants inadvertently make complex through poor communication skills or utter confusion, which are then conveyed to a customer or potential customer…which leads to more confusion, or a stalled project, or a poor remedial decision, or even worse…the loss of a client (potential or existing).  

To avoid this mistake adapt the “consumer’s perspective” throughout every aspect of your practice. Experience will oftentimes help an environmental practitioner (or any professional for that matter) learn to develop this mindset, and once fully integrated, you’ll easily understand the value, and your client will appreciate it.  There will be occasions when discussions on technical or regulatory items need to take place, but that doesn’t mean you need to inundate your customers with so much information and data that they feel overwhelmed.  It will take practice and patience, but be mindful of this easily, overlooked skillset.

Stay tuned for future updates and musings, as well as others, from Cardinal Environmental. We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com, or www.cardinallsrp.com.  

Advocating for your Client in the LSRP World

“Advocate: To publicly recommend or support.”

Can Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs) advocate for their clients when pursuing closure on a remedial case or when discussing regulatory and/or technical matters with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)?  Contrary to some in the NJ consulting world, the answer is YES.  Is it the same as it was prior to the enactment of the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA)? NO.  The days of conducting remedial activities to satisfy a NJDEP case manager are gone, with only a few exceptions. Now, satisfying the LSRP is the objective for most cases, as they are now tasked with signing off on remedial cleanups.  

To put this into the proper context: For an LSRP to be an advocate, they need to have a complete understanding of the client’s specific remedial situation, and essentially be in agreement on the approach.  Once done, they can work collectively to execute an appropriate solution.  This is also a two-way street, as the client needs to understand the role of the LSRP, and their comfort level with regards to specific remedial strategies. Only through effective communication can this be accomplished; however, once this initial hurdle is overcome, the LSRP will have a plethora of tools at their disposal (e.g. technical guidance documents, NJDEP technical consultations, etc.) to support a remedial approach, and ultimately advocate or champion for their client.

For an LSRP, advocating does not mean ignoring or overlooking regulation when conducting remedial activities, to win business, satisfy a client or stay under budget, nor does it mean to find a solution amenable to your client that could be perceived as not being protective of human health, safety, and the environment. 

The challenging part, is whether or not the LSRP (or the client) is willing to budget the time necessary to really dig in deep to establish a great working relationship, and find a solution. To date, the LSRP process has been relatively successful and will only continue to improve in the future, but “successes” require participation on both sides.  As we’ve stressed in prior posts, this is why retaining a skilled and confident practitioner (LSRP) is paramount…as they’ll understand the value in spending the extra time communicating with their client and becoming their advocate.   

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. Stay tuned for future LSRP notes and strategies in the upcoming weeks…as there are plenty of lessons and unique observations to be shared, which could ultimately make our jobs easier, and speed the process for our clients.   

For further information on the LSRP program, or how we can help you navigate through the NJDEP regulatory process, please don't hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com, or www.cardinalLSRP.com.

N.J.A.C. 7:26I- SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Volume IV: Deviation from Technical Guidance

On January 4th, 2016, newly adopted rules by the New Jersey-Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board-N.J.A.C. 7:26I ("Regulations of the New Jersey Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board") were published in the NJ State Register.  The effective date is January 4th, 2016 / expiration date is January 4th, 2023.  This is the fourth part of the blog series where we continue to look at some of the changes, and look at the public comments / questions and Board responses...and try to "simplify" what they mean.  For this post, we’ll take a brief look at Professional Competency (of a Licensed Site Remediation Professional-LSRP) and deviation from technical guidance, as discussed in the General Comments section of the Adoption Document: 

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.3 Professional Competency

47. COMMENT: The commenters state that proposed N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.3(c) requires an LSRP to explain why Department technical guidance is "inappropriate or unnecessary" if not used. The SRRA does not authorize this requirement and thus it exceeds the Board's authority. This section should be modified to remove the requirement that an LSRP provide a written rationale concerning why the technical guidance issued by the Department is inappropriate or unnecessary, and instead require the LSRP to explain the rationale for use and provide adequate justification to document that the decisions made remain protective of public health and safety and the environment. (8 and 17)

RESPONSE: The Board disagrees that it exceeded its authority including this requirement in its proposed new rules. The Legislature included a requirement for the LSRP to set forth the justification for using either U.S. EPA guidance or other relevant, applicable, and appropriate methods and practices, and the Board has reflected that requirement in its proposed new rules. Furthermore, there is nothing in the SRRA that supports the commenters' contention that while the Legislature took pains to specifically identify certain requirements that ensure the protection of the public health and safety and the environment, that it intended to have an LSRP simply ignore them without comment or justification. Consequently, the proposed new rules require that the LSRP include in the appropriate report a written rationale that explains why the technical guidance issued by the Department is inappropriate or unnecessary to meet the remediation requirements and which justifies the use of the guidance or methods that were utilized. This requirement is in sync with the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1 et seq.) and the Administrative Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26C-1 et seq.). (see N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.5, which requires that "any person conducting remediation pursuant to this chapter shall apply, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26C-1.2(a)3, any available and appropriate technical guidance concerning site remediation as issued by the Department, or shall provide a written rationale and justification for any deviation from guidance.") Therefore, the Board declines to revise the proposed new rules as the commenters suggest.

What does that really mean?  Again, to simplify the matter...an LSRP is required to justify why there was a deviation from applicable NJDEP guidance when conducting an investigation, remediation, etc.  Most practitioners in New Jersey conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and honesty, and keep protection of human health, safety, and the environment there top priority; however, there are over twenty (20) technical guidance documents in New Jersey and the NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual is over five-hundred pages (500)…so the odds of deviating from guidance are pretty high…and really not quite as simple as one would hope or expect.  Similarly, from a business perspective, if one were to follow every detail in every “guidance,” the potential costs for an otherwise routine project could be significant…and potentially cause a prospective client to search for less expensive options. 

Fortunately, technical guidance is (on most occasions) relatively easy to abide by, with deviations generally minor and easy to (technically) justify.  Professional judgement and experience(s) will always vary between individuals, and there is more than enough information available outside of New Jersey to support a remedial decision that deviates from guidance including technical documents from the EPA, ITRC, and ASTM (to name a few), all of which should become part of an LSRP’s toolbox.  More importantly, the easiest way to avoid having a remedial phase report scrutinized, or even having your Response Action Outcome (RAO) potentially rescinded, is to simply “explain” the reason for the deviation in your submission(s) and provide the appropriate technical document to back it up.  Generally the time requirement is minimal, and would save you from a lot of headaches later on…and save you or client a lot of money.   

Stay tuned for future posts as we’ll continue to dissect and try to simplify more items on the new NJDEP SRPLB Rule Adoptions.

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding LSRP services, and/or environmental business practices, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com.

N.J.A.C. 7:26I- SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Volume III: IEC Reporting

On January 4th, 2016, newly adopted rules by the New Jersey-Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board-N.J.A.C. 7:26I ("Regulations of the New Jersey Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board") were published in the NJ State Register.  The effective date is January 4th, 2016 / expiration date is January 4th, 2023.  This is the third part of this series where we continue to look at some of the changes, and look at the public comments / questions and Board responses...and try to "simplify" what they mean.  For this post, we’ll take a brief look at the responsibilities (of a Licensed Site Remediation Professional-LSRP) to report an Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC), as discussed in the General Comments section of the Adoption Document: 

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.9 Responsibility to Report an Immediate Environmental Concern

60. COMMENT: The commenter is concerned with the duty to report a discharge by an LSRP that is not retained as the LSRP for a site or area of concern. The commenter opines that an LSRP who is not so retained should not be obligated to act upon information that he or she learns, because he or she would not have all of the necessary information to make any informed regulatory decisions for a potentially complex regulatory action or property transaction. The commenter requests that the Board clarify this issue. (7)

RESPONSE: The commenter asks for clarification of an LSRP's duty of disclosure when the LSRP "comes across information but is not retained as the LSRP for the site [or] area of concern." If an LSRP that is not responsible for a site or area of concern identifies a previously unreported condition that the LSRP considers to be an immediate environmental concern, the LSRP shall immediately advise the person responsible for conducting the remediation and immediately notify the Department, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.9. The Board considers it of utmost importance that the LSRP report the existence of the immediate environmental concern in order to protect public health and safety and the environment. It is not necessary for the LSRP to have information to make informed regulatory decisions prior to making such a report. In the case of a contaminated site or area of concern for which the LSRP is responsible, if the LSRP obtains specific knowledge that a previously unreported discharge has occurred on the contaminated site or area of concern, the LSRP shall immediately notify the person responsible for conducting the remediation, the Department, and any other LSRP working on the site, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10.

What does that really mean?  Again, to simplify the matter...an LSRP must report previously unreported discharges for sites for which they are responsible.  Contractually, an LSRP and their client (Person Responsible for Conducting the Remediation) can establish the terms if such an instance arises and make the call to the NJDEP Hotline (1-877-WARNDEP); however, the challenge occurs when the LSRP has not yet been retained or contracted.  For those instances the LSRP still has an obligation to report the IEC in order to protect public health and safety and the environment, regardless of retention or any contractual arrangement(s).  Unfortunately, with that reporting requirement, there is also an increased chance that you could lose a potential client in the process if not handled appropriately.

As outlined in our previous posts; it is highly recommended that proper communication / discussions take place well in advance, so that if there is a potential reporting requirement and/or IEC, it can be addressed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:26I-6.10.  This is the easiest way to avoid complicating matters, and potentially retain what may be a great client that is looking to “do the right thing.”  Conversely, if the individual or organization is adamant and does not want to report anything, it may be in the best interest of the LSRP (or any environmental consultant for that matter) to not conduct business with them.  Although this would likely impact the financial aspects of the LSRP’s business, it would preserve professional credibility, and also be in line with N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.14-Responsibility to Disassociate from Unscrupulous Persons. 

Stay tuned for future posts as we’ll continue to dissect and try to simplify more items on the new NJDEP SRPLB Rule Adoptions.

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding LSRP services, and/or environmental business practices, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com. 

Should Small Businesses Pursue Requests For Proposals (RFP)?

Requests for Proposals (RFPs) come in many forms, from a broad range of organizations with the ultimate goal being to procure the best-valued contractor.  The evaluation criteria is also quite variable, and responses to RFPs mimic this variability. What about Lowest-Price-Technically Acceptable (LPTA) criteria?  What about incumbent bidders and potential advantages?  Small business of all shapes, sizes, and forms sometimes (generally) view RFPs as onerous with low conversion or win rates…but they still pursue them.  Some folks, including Seth Godin mention that “The RFP is an organization punt, it’s way of saying, it’s all a commodity, we can’t decide, the cheap guy wins.  The cheap guy, of course, never wins.”    

So what does that mean for small environmental businesses? 

·       Small businesses can be the “Cheap Guy” and they sometimes can win; however,

·       Understand and know who and where the RFP is coming from,

·       Be wary and selective of all RFPs, Request for Qualifications (RFQs), etc...as you’re being judged on your credentials and cost,

·       The time investment responding to an RFP could be significant to the business, and negatively impact the projects for your other good “paying” clients,

·       Be wary of the organization that severely and consistently underbids RFPs (these organizations undermine the intent of selecting “best-value”),

·       Do a relatively painless “go / no-go” analysis beforehand, and,

·       Know your firm’s competitive advantages over others (including costs) beforehand.

Low-bid contracts can sometimes be disastrous to small businesses, but the biggest success stories (for both the business and organization that puts out the RFP) are from those where there is a mutual understanding of the “goals” of the project, and an understanding that there are many environmental variables that oftentimes aren’t presented until a project is initiated.  That being said, don’t fear the RFP, but know when to pass on an opportunity…and if you do pass, send it along to someone with more interest; you never know when the favor will be returned. Happy hunting!

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding environmental investigations, due diligence, and/or environmental business practices, please don’t hesitate to contact us at tfrancis@cardinalLSRP.com or www.cardinalLSRP.com.