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. As part of this series we'll take a brief look at some of the changes, and also take a look at the public comments / questions and Board responses...and try to "simplify" what they mean.

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10 Responsibility to Report a Discharge

60. COMMENT: The commenter questions whether N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10(a) requires an LSRP to report an unrelated discharge on an off-site property that he or she discovers while delineating a plume originating on-site. For example, if the contaminated site the LSRP is remediating has a BTEX plume, but an offsite well placed by the LSRP indicates VOC contamination, should the LSRP report it? (18)

RESPONSE: Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.10(a), an LSRP has an obligation to report a previously unreported discharge when the LSRP obtains specific knowledge that a discharge has occurred on a contaminated site for which he or she is responsible. "Contaminated site" is defined by the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation as "all portions of environmental media and any location where contamination is emanating, or which has emanated there from, that contain one or more contaminants at a concentration above any remediation standard or screening criterion." See N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.8. A contaminated site does not stop at the property boundary. The commenter presumes that because a monitoring well is not within the property boundary, it is not on the contaminated site, and, therefore, the LSRP is not responsible for it. That does not comport with the definition of "contaminated site" quoted above. The Board expects an LSRP to report any discharges on a contaminated site that were not previously reported.

What does that really mean? Again, to simplify the matter...if contamination is detected in an "off-site" monitoring well it must be reported. That's the easy explanation as to what must be done. The difficult explanation is with the off-site property owner that had no idea they had (or expected to have) a groundwater contamination issue. Now they are potentially a Responsible Party, if the contamination at their property is unrelated to the contamination at their neighbor's property. To avoid surprises later, it is highly recommended that proper communication / discussions take place well in advance, and that access agreements are agreed upon prior to installing any off-site monitoring wells and collecting any samples. Retaining a skilled environmental attorney would also be beneficial, as off-site contamination matters (and the finger-pointing) often times get muddled in regulation and litigation, and ultimately stall out site and/or remedial investigations, thus complicating matters even further.

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

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

As a continuation of our Vapor Intrusion Investigation (VII) series, we’ll take a quick look at one of the basic fundamentals for conducting a thorough VII: effective communication with a homeowner. Whether you’re collecting exterior soil gas samples, running 24-hour indoor air tests, or completing a building survey/questionnaire with a homeowner, if you cannot properly communicate what you’re doing and why, then you significantly decrease your odds of conducting a successful VII. You may also never get past the front door! (As always, there is plenty of research, data, and guidance on this topic but the objective of this series is to “simplify” the discussion).

It is vital to understand your client, who may also be the homeowner and/or occupant of where a VII may be necessary. Put aside your budget, and that you only have 1-hour for an interview, and actually focus on your client’s concerns, fears, and questions. Don’t just hear them, but actually listen! Chances are, they are more confused than you realize, and to build their trust, here are some basic tips:

Explain the rationale for the testing…clearly, and minimize the “technical jargon.”
Answer all questions directly…don’t deviate, or be cryptic.
If you don’t know the answer, tell them that, but be sure to tell them that you’ll follow-up with an answer (and make sure you follow-up right away!).
Ask permission for everything in advance. This includes inspecting closets, basements, cabinets, and generally anywhere where you suspect potential background contaminants may be present. No homeowner or occupant wants a nosy stranger going through their house or personal belongings.
Schedule everything in advance…and be prompt.
Dress professionally…yes, this makes a difference.
And most importantly, be polite. (You’d be surprised how often people forget this one)

As discussed and stressed in our prior posts, this is why hiring that skilled practitioner is a good idea…as they’ll understand the value in spending the extra time communicating with the homeowner / occupant(s) / client, and building their trust. Taking along younger staff members to observe and assist is also strongly recommended. Barring any contractual or confidentiality issues, always share your analytical results promptly. Once you have earned your client’s trust (and respect), any necessary follow-up activities, which could include mitigation, will be that much easier to discuss and potentially implement.

We hope that you find these posts informative, and relatively useful, and your feedback is always welcome. For further information regarding the Vapor Intrusion Investigation process, please don't hesitate to contact us. tfrancis@cardinallsrp.com

N.J.A.C. 7:26I-SRPLB Rule Adoption Review- Vol. I

Effective Communication-Vapor Intrusion Investigations Vol. V