New York State Comptroller Sets Forth Options for Revitalizing State's Brownfield Cleanup Programs

Late last month, New York State's Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, issued a report reviewing options for modifying the way the state incentivizes and administers cleanups of its thousands of remaining brownfield sites. The Report has special significance in light of Mr. DiNapoli's expertise in this area: he is a former Chair of the State Assembly's Environmental Conservation Committee and one of the architects of the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Act, passed in 2003.

The urgency of updating the Act is accelerating with every month. The Act’s tax credits--which, for many participants, are the most powerful incentives to enroll a site in the state’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP)--expire as of December 31, 2015 for all sites which have not received their Certification Of Completion (COC) by that date. It generally takes two to three years from enrollment in the BCP to receipt of a COC. Accordingly, sites entering the BCP now are increasingly at risk of not obtaining their COCs prior to the sunsetting of these tax credits.

As Mr. DiNapoli acknowledges, his review builds on the recommendations of other commentators, including the New York State Bar Association Environmental Section's Brownfield Task Force. The options evaluated in the Report include:

  • Extending or removing the sunset date for expiration of tax credits for sites currently enrolled in the BCP.
  • Maintaining broad eligibility for entry into the BCP and for qualifying for the tax credits for cleanup costs. As-of-right credits for such costs range from 22% to 50%, depending on the extent of cleanup and the anticipated site use. The tax credits are refundable--i.e., to the extent they exceed the tax obligation of the qualifying entity, that entity receives a refund check from the state.
  • Enhancing state funding for Phase I and Phase II site assessments, which are currently not eligible for tax credit treatment when performed prior to a site’s being enrolled in the BCP.
  • Imposing additional requirements for sites to qualify for tax credits for build-out expenses (i.e., the “above-ground” costs of developing the site). At present, these credits are as-of-right for all sites accepted into the BCP and range from 10% to 22%, subject to caps based on the amount of cleanup costs expended and an overall per site dollar limit. Under one option evaluated by the Report, sites would henceforth have to show a special need for development credits based on site conditions and/or economic circumstances.
  • Authorizing a new Voluntary Cleanup Program that, like the BCP, would provide state oversight and liability protection, but would do so with more streamlined procedures and without offering tax credits.
  • Enhancing funding for the state’s two other cleanup programs, the Environmental Restoration Program (whose available funds are fully obligated) and the State Superfund Program.
  • Reducing administrative burdens by modifying the extensive public participation requirements under the BCP and/or by reducing or eliminating state oversight fees.
  • Partnering with municipalities by allowing those with sufficient technical capacity to run their own brownfield cleanup programs, as New York City is currently doing under a Memorandum of Agreement with the state.
  • Providing authority for enforcing the obligation of tax credit recipients to file reports required under the BCP.
  • Enhancing the state’s database of brownfield sites.

The Report is careful not to choose among the various options reviewed. But, Mr. DiNapoli’s selection of issues to highlight is significant, especially given his expertise in this area and his personal relationships with key players in the Legislature and the Governor’s office. Because of this, and because it skillfully draws on the recommendations of other knowledgeable commentors, the Report will no doubt be influential in the continuing debate on how to revitalize efforts to clean up New York State’s brownfields.


David J. Freeman is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

New Report Considers Options For Tweaking Brownfields Programs in NY

New York State was among the first to enact programs aimed at remediation and redevelopment of contaminated sites. The goal of such programs is both to promote economic revitalization and to encourage private entities to remediate the state’s contaminated sites. Three such programs, the Voluntary Cleanup Program (“VCP”), the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), and the Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”), have achieved considerable success, with over 400 sites having been remediated in the past two decades. Nevertheless, policy makers continue to search for ways to make these programs better and more cost efficient. Prompted by the impending expiration of key provisions of the BCP, a report released by the New York State Comptroller’s office in April 2013, provides an assessment of these programs, as well as some options for improvement going forward.

The VCP was New York’s first attempt to address its brownfields problem. It provided participants with limited liability protection, targeted cleanup standards based on the proposed use of the site, and overall a more streamlined process than the State Superfund process. Unlike the other two programs, it did not offer any financial incentives. Nonetheless, 212 sites have been remediated through this program. The ERP supports municipal projects to remediate and redevelop brownfields. Like the VCP, the ERP provides limited liability protection to participating municipalities. Unlike the VCP, however, the ERP provides for 90% of cleanup costs. Since its inception, this program has resulted in the remediation of 68 sites at an average cost to the State of approximately $780,000 per site. The BCP, like the VCP and ERP, offers limited liability protection and a streamlined process. Unlike those programs, however, the BCP offers refundable tax credits of 22% to 50% for cleanup costs and (subject to caps based on cleanup expenses and overall dollar amounts) 10% to 22% for redevelopment costs. Since its adoption, this program has seen the cleanup of 128 sites at an average tax credit cost to the State of $9.4 million per site.

In an effort to make such programs more cost-effective without discouraging the continued cleanup and redevelopment of New York’s brownfields, several options have been proposed. These include tweaking the incentives that are currently offered by, for example, limiting or removing tax incentives entirely, or maintaining credits for cleanup costs while restricting them for development costs. Other options include reducing the administrative burdens of these programs in order to simplify participation, or creating low-cost options for projects that are viable without financial incentives.

One thing is certain: with key provisions of the BCP set to expire in 2015, there is no time for delay in considering how to maintain, and improve, the vitality of such programs in the future.


Adam C. Arnold is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmenal Department. David A. Brooks, a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, co-authored this post.

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Continues to Take Form With the Release of EPA's Final Draft Guidance

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently released its long-awaited final vapor intrusion draft guidance (“Final VI Guidance”). The nearly 200-page document establishes a complex framework for assessing vapor intrusion from analyzing key factors; making risk management decisions; and implementing, monitoring and terminating mitigation strategies and is intended to be used at any site that is being evaluated under CERCLA, RCRA, EPA’s brownfield grantees, or state agencies with delegated authority. The Final VI Guidance supercedes all prior EPA guidance documents addressing vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation including the 2002 Draft Vapor Intrusion Guidance, but takes into account the public comments submitted from 2002 through 2012 and the recommendations of the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In addition to the Final VI Guidance, which applies generally to petroleum hydrocarbons, EPA released its companion Guidance For Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion At Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (“PVI Guidance”), which focuses specifically on petroleum hydrocarbons released from underground storage tanks. For these situations, the guidance recommends that owners and operators assess any immediate threat to safety, conduct a site characterization and develop a conceptual site model, delineate a lateral inclusion zone, identify preferential transport pathways within the inclusion zone, sample if light non-aqueous phase liquid (“LNAPL”) exists within 15-feet of an underlying building, and mitigate as appropriate.

“When final, these guidance documents will help ensure vapor intrusion exposure assessment and mitigation actions to protect human health are undertaken in a technically, scientifically and nationally consistent manner,” stated Richard Kapuscinski, a senior official in EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, in a memorandum announcing the Final VI Guidance release.

The public’s reaction to the new guidance documents remains to be seen. Some early responses have raised concerns about escalating costs relating to the extensive testing required by the new guidance. Others have questioned EPA’s ability to reopen old sites where remediation has been deemed complete, but were evaluated under methods made defunct by the new guidance.

EPA is seeking public comment on the drafts, which may be submitted here until May 24, 2013. To date, over 81 public comments have been posted to the website relating to VI guidance. Other EPA technical documents relating to vapor intrusion, including the Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (“VISL”) Calculator and the Superfund Five-year Review Guidance may be found at the Office of Solid Waste Emergency Response website.

State practitioners should also be mindful of the federal guidelines. New Jersey recently issued new vapor intrusion screening levels to reflect the changes in the federal VISL. Thus, changes in the federal guidance may trigger changes in the state guidance. This blog will certainly comment on any new developments.

*Photo courtesy of epa.gov


Sandro G. Ocasio is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Gibbons Director, David Freeman, to Speak at Upcoming Strafford Brownfield Webinar

David J. Freeman, a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will speak at the upcoming Strafford webinar, "New Developments in Brownfield Redevelopment," on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.

Recently, brownfield development has grown more complex, creating new challenges on top of the pre-existing federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements and permitting approvals. Mr. Freeman and his fellow panelists will discuss "hot topics" in brownfield redevelopment, including:

  • Bona Fide Purchaser Requirements After the Ashley II Decision
  • Vapor Intrusion
  • Brightfields
  • Changes in Land Use
  • Financing
  • Environmental Justice

There will also be a question-and-answer session on these and other brownfield-related topics following the speakers' presentations.

For additional information or to register at a 50% discount, please click here.

Gibbons Director David Freeman Reelected President of the New York City Brownfield Partnership

David J. Freeman, a Director in the Real Property & Environmental Department of Gibbons P.C., has been unanimously reelected to a second term as president of the New York City Brownfield Partnership, a public/private nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields in New York City.

The Partnership is a member organization of more than 40 real estate developers and owners, community organizations, governmental agencies, and environmental professionals who are active on brownfield matters. Working with the New York City Office of Environmental Remediation (OER), the Partnership serves as an information resource on a range of brownfield development issues; encourages collaboration among stakeholders in the brownfields process; helps communities understand their brownfield issues; highlights successful projects through an annual awards program; supports the education and training of brownfield professionals; and provides information and insight to help the city’s development community better navigate the process of redeveloping vacant and underutilized land with environmental issues.

“David joined Gibbons earlier this year as part of a strategic expansion of our environmental practice throughout the region,” says Patrick C. Dunican Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of the firm. “His work with the Brownfields Partnership raises the profile of our practice in New York City and strengthens our ties with critical contacts and organizations in the field.”

At Gibbons, Mr. Freeman represents buyers, sellers, and developers of properties in all environmental law areas, including brownfields, due diligence, hazardous waste cleanups, and sustainability. He litigates matters related to remediation, cost recovery, property damage, and exposure to toxic substances. Previously in his career, he served as a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Frank E. Moss and a trial attorney for the Federal Trade Commission. He has been listed in such peer- and client-review publications as the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business and Super Lawyers and is a frequent author and speaker on environmental law topics who received a 2012 Burton Award for Legal Achievement for his work as “an outstanding law firm author.” In addition to his role with the Brownfield Partnership, Mr. Freeman serves as vice chair of the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund and as co-chair of the New York State Bar Association Environmental Law Section’s Committee on Hazardous Waste/Site Remediation, as well as co-chair of the Section’s Brownfield Task Force.

New York Court of Appeals Clarifies Relationship Between SEQRA and Brownfield Cleanup Act

On October 23, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals handed down its decision in Bronx Committee for Toxic Free Schools v. New York City School Construction Authority. In it, the Court held that the public notice procedures that the School Construction Authority followed under the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Act (BCA) did not satisfy the related, but distinct public notice and comment obligations under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

The issue arose in Bronx Committee because at the time of SEQRA review, remediation had not yet taken place. Accordingly the Authority did not include in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) a plan for long-term maintenance and monitoring, believing that any discussion of such procedures would be premature prior to completion of cleanup. When remediation was finished, the Authority took the position that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was unnecessary in light of the extensive public notice requirements that it had followed pursuant to the BCA.

The Court disagreed with the Authority. Because “the long term maintenance and monitoring of … engineering controls were too important not to be described in an EIS,” the Court held that the plain language of SEQRA required their inclusion, either in the EIS or by the filing of an SEIS.

The Court went out of its way to emphasize that it was not ruling on how much detail needs to be included in the SEQRA documents. It also noted that since the Authority did not dispute that long-term monitoring was essential for the protection of public health and the environment, it was not second-guessing the Authority’s judgment on what is “significant” for SEQRA purposes. It thus appears that the decision leaves a great deal of discretion to lead agencies with respect to these issues.

Judge Read’s concurring opinion noted the confusing language of implementing regulations under both SEQRA and the BCA, which provide that in certain circumstances, activities undertaken under the BCA are exempt from SEQRA compliance. Read noted that the Authority never argued that this exemption applied, so that the issue was not directly before the Court. She encouraged the Department of Environmental Conservation to clarify the interplay between these statutes in its upcoming revision of the SEQRA regulations.

The net result of the decision is this: where long-term monitoring (or, presumably, other remedial measures) will be required at a site enrolled in the Brownfield Cleanup Program but the specifics have not been determined at the time of an EIS, simply following the public notice and comment provisions of the BCA will not suffice. Either the EIS must contain a general description of the types of measures that will be implemented, or an SEIS must be filed after those methods have been determined.


David J. Freeman is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Environmental Issues a Growing Concern for Companies

As companies in the northeast region take advantage of an improving real estate market, in the face of aggressive agency enforcement, and complex environmental programs and policies, the need for environmental counsel to assist with transactions, navigate potential pitfalls and mitigate future liability, has become essential. In a recent article published by The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, three new Gibbons Directors - William Hatfield, Camille Otero, and David Freeman - discuss: 

  • the firm's strategic decision to expand the practice group;
  • the growth of the environmental law market;
  • and how their experience can assist clients in this expanding field.

Click here to read the full article.

Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Team Members Contribute Chapter in Brownfields Publication

David A. Brooks and Paul M. Hauge, both members of the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, contributed a chapter in Implementing Institutional Controls at Brownfields and Other Contaminated Sites. Edward F. McTiernan, Deputy Counsel with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, co-authored the chapter with Mr. Brooks and Mr. Hauge.

Their chapter covers the state of New Jersey; and appears in Part III of the volume, which is entitled "Selected States and Ontario, Canada." The chapter covers New Jersey’s particular approach to institutional controls, including the implications of the 2009 Site Remediation Reform Act. The book is published by the American Bar Association.

Implementing Institutional Controls at Brownfields and Other Contaminated Sites discusses why the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA) is important and how most states are handling institutional control issues, whether they have adopted UECA or not. Other institutional control tools, such as EPA's use of five-year reviews under the federal Superfund law, Land Use Control Implementation Plans, and state and local innovations are also discussed, as well as recent efforts to improve regulators’ and practitioners’ understanding of institutional control issues.. Amy L. Edwards is the editor of this edition.

Mr. Brooks concentrates his practice in the area of environmental law, especially regulatory compliance, including compliance with the Industrial Site Recovery Act; solid waste and hazardous waste and substances management; Brownfields redevelopment; and remediation and litigation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. He also worked on numerous Brownfields redevelopment projects.

Mr. Hauge represents clients in administrative and judicial proceedings brought under federal and state environmental statutes and common law, including New Jersey Spill Act directives, EPA investigations, brownfield disputes, Spill Act and CERCLA/Superfund cost recovery and contribution actions, natural resource damage suits, and toxic tort litigation.

NY Court Denies Summary Judgment in Seemingly Clear-Cut Case Under NY Navigation Law

An upstate Supreme Court Justice has denied summary judgment on liability under Section 181 of the state’s Navigation Law against a company whose predecessor owned and operated a petroleum refinery on the site for almost 60 years. The decision in One Flint Street LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp, et al., Index No. 2011/4470 (July 18, 2012, Monroe Co. Sup. Ct.) establishes a high bar for obtaining summary judgment in Nav Law cases.

The site’s current owner, One Flint Street LLC, filed suit against Exxon and others for alleged petroleum contamination at a site in Rochester that it had recently purchased. At the outset of the case, plaintiff filed for partial summary judgment against Exxon, on the grounds that the long history of operating a refinery on the site by Exxon’s predecessor, Vacuum Oil, clearly established liability for the contamination found there. Plaintiff supported its motion with test results and an expert’s affidavit that certain contaminants could have come only from refinery operations, which plaintiff never conducted.

The Court denied the motion, holding that the evidence does not establish conclusively that the discharges occurred while Exxon’s predecessor, rather than plaintiff, owned the property. The Court seemed to suggest that evidence of any contribution to site conditions by the current owner would defeat a Nav Law claim for contribution against a past discharger.

In its ruling, the Court emphasized that many of the defendants have yet to answer the complaint, and that discovery has just commenced. It noted that it would be prepared to reconsider plaintiff’s motion at a later stage in the case.

While it is undoubtedly true that additional discovery would help flesh out Exxon’s allocable share of liability, the decision sets a surprisingly high bar for prevailing on summary judgment under the Nav Law against a party which appears clearly liable for a major share of site contamination.


David J. Freeman is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

USEPA Grants Technical Assistance to Coopers Ferry Partnership to Study SMART Initiative in Camden, N.J.

On July 19, 2012, Coopers Ferry Partnership was one of 17 community partners selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to receive technical assistance as part of its 2011 strategic agenda to renew support for green infrastructure and promote its effective implementation. The Coopers Ferry Partnership will receive $70,000 to advance projects aimed at reducing water pollution in Camden, New Jersey.

EPA’s technical assistance will help Coopers Ferry Partnership evaluate the benefits of the Camden Stormwater Management and Resource Training (SMART) Initiative. The SMART Initiative is a public/private collaboration between the City of Camden, Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, Rutgers Cooperative Extension Water Resources Program, New Jersey Tree Foundation, NJ Department of Environmental Protection, community organizations, and Camden residents to restore and revitalize Camden neighborhoods. The objective of the Initiative is to develop a comprehensive network of green infrastructure programs and projects for the City of Camden.

Urban run-off of stormwater from roofs and roadways is a serious problem across the country. Large volumes of polluted stormwater degrade the country’s rivers and lakes. Cities, faced with aging and inadequate stormwater infrastructure are increasingly turning to green infrastructure solutions. Green infrastructure, such as rain gardens, green roofs and permeable pavement, uses vegetation and soil to manage rainwater where it falls. By weaving natural processes into the urban environment, green infrastructure provides not only stormwater management, but also flood mitigation, air quality management, and much more. In Camden, four rain gardens were built on the site of an abandoned gas station. Thus, in addition to the stormwater and flood mitigation, the neighborhood traded in a blighted eyesore for a lovely and and productive park. According to EPA, “At a time when so much of our infrastructure is in need of replacement or repair and so few communities can foot the bill, we need resilient and affordable solutions that meet many objectives at once. Green infrastructure is one solution.”

Camden SMART, in the first year, has built eleven raingardens and introduced rain barrels, designed to capture, treat and infiltrate over 800,000 gallons of stormwater in a year. It has plans to build 20- 40 more rain gardens. In addtion, it has organized and hosted educational programs and information sessions on sound stormwater management practices.

The EPA technical assistance will enable Coopers Ferry Partnership to assess the water quality, air quality, brownfield remediation benefits and flooding mitigation potential of the SMART Initiative. The information developed from the SMART experience can provide guidance to other cities faced with urban runoff problems.

* Photo courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

 

Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department Adds David Freeman to the New York Office

David J. Freeman, formerly head of the Environmental Practice Group at the New York City office of Paul Hastings, has joined Gibbons P.C.’s New York office as a Director in the Real Property & Environmental Department. Mr. Freeman represents the buyers, sellers, and developers of properties in all environmental law areas including brownfields, due diligence, hazardous waste cleanups, and sustainability. He also litigates matters related to remediation, cost recovery, property damage, and exposure to toxic substances.

“David is a highly regarded lawyer who will help us expand the environmental practice in our New York office,” says Patrick C. Dunican Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of Gibbons. “He will help us to provide additional services to our clients in this market.”

Mr. Freeman has been recognized by clients and peers as a leading environmental lawyer in both the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Law Firms and Super Lawyers. He is also a frequent author and speaker on environmental law topics, and received a 2012 Burton Award for Legal Achievement for his work as “an outstanding law firm author.”

Mr. Freeman currently serves as the President of the New York City Brownfield Partnership, as the Vice Chair of the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, and on the Board of Advisors for Real Estate / Environmental Liability News.

He earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his B.A. from Harvard University, and is admitted to practice in New York, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. Previously in his career, he also served as a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Frank E. Moss and a trial attorney for the Federal Trade Commission.

NJDEP Proposes New Rules for Site Cleanups

On August 15, 2011, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued proposed Final Rules to implement the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) adopted in May 2009. These rules are intended to be the final implementation step in the phased transition of New Jersey’s site remediation process from NJDEP command and control to private oversight by Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs). Instead of NJDEP overseeing every step of a cleanup, the LSRP, licensed by a 13-member Licensed Site Remediation Professional Board with investigative and disciplinary powers, is responsible for making day-to-day decisions about a clean-up. Certain categories of cleanups remain under NJDEP oversight, such as where the responsible party has a history of non-compliance or has failed to meet mandatory deadlines. The rule proposal appeared in the New Jersey Register on August 15, 2011 and can be viewed online. Comments can be submitted until October 14, 2011.

The proposal includes major amendments, repeals and new rules intended to fully implement the new LSRP oversight remediation paradigm. The proposed Final Rules provide for the following:

  • Amending the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (ARRCS) rules, the Underground Storage Tank (UST) rules and the Industrial Site Remediation Act (ISRA) Rules to remove all provisions related to the phase-in period;
  • Recodifying all administrative requirements from the ISRA Rules and UST rules to the ARRCS rules;
  • Adding mandatory timeframes for completion of remedial investigation and implementation of remedial action;
  • Repealing and replacing the current Technical Requirements with new performance-based Technical Requirements, intended to allow more flexibility in addressing contamination and potential exposure pathways. Many of the existing Technical Requirements will be recast as a new series of technical guidance documents providing direction on how to achieve the performance-based goals;
  • Amending the Discharges of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substances rules to require compliance with both a facility’s discharge cleanup and removal plan and the ARRCs rules; and 
  • Reformatting text where needed to make the rules easier to understand, to correct typographical and grammatical errors, and to update cross-references.

According to NJDEP Commissioner Bob Martin,

It is a priority of the Christie Administration to clean the more than 16,000 contaminated sites across the State. This is an important step to help us more quickly and efficiently achieve that important goal. It will benefit public health and the environment, and will make underutilized properties available more quickly for redevelopment, benefiting economic growth.

The proposed rules were developed with the input of interested stakeholders. A public hearing on the proposed rules is scheduled for September 13 at 9 am in the first floor public hearing room at the DEP building, 401 East State Street, Trenton. NJDEP will accept written comments until October 14, addressed to Janis Hoagland, NJDEP, Office of Legal Affairs, Mail Code 401-041L, PO Box 402, 401 East State Street, 4th Floor, Trenton, NJ 08625-0402, ATTN: DEP Docket No. 12-11-07. The transition of New Jersey’s site remediation process from NJDEP command and control to private oversight by LSRPs presents complex issues for the department and the regulated community. Thus it is important for the regulated community to analyze the proposed rules and take advantage of NJDEP’s efforts to respond to stakeholder comments.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

NJICLE Holds its Annual Environmental Law Section Forum

On the weekend of June 24-26, 2011, the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education (“NJICLE”) in cooperation with the New Jersey State Bar Association (“NJSBA”), and New Jersey Corporate Counsel Association, held its annual Environmental Law Section Forum Weekend (“the Forum”). Taking place in Avalon, New Jersey, the Forum featured three days of seminars covering various hot-button environmental topics including, Funding for Remediating Sites, Vapor Intrusion, the LSRP Program, Non-Governmental Organizations’ Perspectives on Issues and Resolutions, the well-known NJDEP v. Occidental case also referred to as the Lower Passaic River litigation, Climate Change, and rounded out the weekend with two programs on Ethical Issues including Alternative Fee Arrangements and Multi-Party Settlements.

David Brooks of Gibbons P.C. was the moderator and a panelist for the Vapor Intrusion presentation, an issue that has received increased attention in recent years from both US EPA and New Jersey. Other speakers at the Forum included not only legal practitioners but the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Non-Profit Organizations, and Private Sector Companies. Jeannie Fox, President of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities gave a keynote speech during the Forum focusing on solar issues in New Jersey.

As a testament to the increased interest in environmental topics as well as the historical success of the Forum, program attendance increased over last year. Attendees earned 11.4 Continuing Legal Education credits including several highly sought after ethics/professionalism credits.


Sandro G. Ocasio is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

National Association of Women Lawyers Confers Outstanding Member Award on Nancy Lottinville

On Thursday, July 21, 2011, Nancy A. Lottinville, Esq., Counsel to Gibbons P.C.’s Newark based Real Property & Environmental Department was awarded the Virginia S. Mueller Outstanding Member Award by the National Association of Women Lawyers, the first national bar association for women established in 1899. Ms. Lottinville, along with six other attorneys chosen from NAWL’s nationwide membership, accepted the award at NAWL’s Annual Meeting held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City. NAWL presents the Outstanding Member Award to NAWL members for exemplary contributions to NAWL. Ms. Lottinville’s contributions include several years of service on multiple committees including the 2011 Co-Chair of the Annual Meeting Logistics Committee, as well as Program Committee member for the 2010 New Jersey NAWL Night of Giving and the 2011 New Jersey Supreme Court Appellate Advocacy Program.

Ms. Lottinville is the Co-Chair of the Women’s Initiative Community Outreach Committee at Gibbons. Her practice focuses on real estate development and redevelopment, land use permitting and commercial real estate transactions for developers of shopping centers, retail stores, banks, franchisors and mixed commercial - residential developments, as well extensive land use due diligence investigations for regional and national investors in a variety of real estate development projects.

Others honored at NAWL’s Annual Meeting include: Brooksley Born, who received the Public Service Award; Susan Blount, who accepted the President’s Award on behalf of Prudential Financial Inc. Legal Department; Judge Harold Baer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and Marc Firestone , General Counsel of Kraft Foods who each received the NAWL Lead by Example Award; and Michele Coleman Mayes who received the M. Ashley Dickerson Award for the promotion of diversity in the legal profession. NAWL’s most prestigious award, the Arabella Babb Mansfield Award - named for the first woman admitted to a state bar in the United States - was presented to Jamie Gorelick, one of the longest serving Deputy Attorney’s General of the United States, a former general counsel to the Departments of Defense and Energy, a former president of the Washington D.C. Bar and current Co-Chair of the ABA Commission on Legal Ethics.

Ms. Lottinville's colleague, Luis Diaz, Esq., a Director and Chief Diversity Officer at Gibbons, participated in an afternoon CLE program panel which focused on overcoming unconscious bias. Gibbons is also represented within NAWL by Kristin Sostowski, who is a Director in Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department. Kristen was sworn in as a new member of NAWL’s Executive Board at the NAWL Annual Meeting. Christine Amalfe, Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department Chair, is also a member of the Board of the NAWL Foundation.

Six New Jersey Communities Will Share $3.4 Million in EPA Brownfield Grants

The EPA has announced that six different New Jersey communities will receive a total of $3.4 million under the agency’s brownfield grant program in FY 2011. The grants will fund assessment and cleanup efforts at contaminated sites so that the sites can be returned to productive use. The grant program, part of EPA’s larger brownfield efforts, will award some $76 million in grants this year, and has awarded over $800 million since its inception. New Jersey’s grants will fund activities at thirteen sites or areas in Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, Elizabeth, Mantua Township, and Maurice River Township.

At the state level, government funding for brownfield revitalization in New Jersey has virtually dried up. As reported on this blog earlier this month, New Jersey’s Brownfield Reimbursement Program has run out of money and is temporarily shut down.


Paul M. Hauge is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

New Jersey Program to Fund Brownfield Clean Ups Closed Temporarily

The Brownfield Reimbursement Program (the “Program”), a New Jersey State initiative designed to reimburse developers up to 75% of costs incurred to remediate a brownfield site, has run out of money and is temporarily shut down. This development arrives on the heels of a recent New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) announcement that, effective May 3, 2011, applications to the Underground Storage Tank Fund, a similar initiative to help homeowners remove USTs, will not be reviewed or processed due to insufficient funds.

Effectuated under the Brownfields and Contaminated Site Remediation Act of 1998, the Program was available to any party that is not liable under the Spill Compensation and Control Act N.J.S.A.58:10-23.11g. Funding for reimbursement under the Program was derived from tax revenues and appears to be a victim of the general budget crisis.

This announcement will no doubt stifle future remediation and development of New Jersey’s many brownfield sites for some time. Even if the program gets back on track, NJDEP will be forced to deal with a backlog of applications. According to Irene Kropp, NJDEP Deputy Commissioner, there are currently $71 million worth of Program applications that have not yet been processed. Those already in the queue must be processed prior to the review of any new submissions.

For more information on brownfields generally, please visit NJDEP’s brownfields website.


Sandro G. Ocasio is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

David A. Brooks to Moderate Panel at 2011 New Jersey Environmental Law Forum

On Friday, June 24, 2011, David A. Brooks, Counsel to the Gibbons Real Property and Environmental Department, will moderate a panel, “Vapor Intrusion: Old Problems - New Rules” at the 2011 Environmental Law Section Forum Weekend presented by the New Jersey State Bar Association and the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education and co-sponsored by the New Jersey Corporate Counsel Association. This full weekend program presents an annual update on environmental law in New Jersey and will also include panels discussing funding for remediation projects, New Jersey’s licensed site remediation professional program, litigation related to the remediation of urban river systems, the role of non-governmental organizations, renewable energy and climate change, and ethical issues.

The conference will be held at the Golden Inn in Avalon, New Jersey from June 24, 2011 through June 26, 2011. Please click here to register.

Vapor Intrusion: Opportunity for Comment with EPA

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice  for “Public Comment on the Development of Final Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway From Contaminated Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance)” in the Federal Register. The draft of the Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance was initially released for comment during 2002 and the EPA is planning on issuing final guidance by November 20, 2012.

More recently, the EPA published a Review of the Draft 2002 Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance which summarized portions of the 2002 guidance requiring update. In general, the EPA noted the observed complexity and variables impacting the migration of volatile organic compounds since issuance of the initial 2002 guidance.

Comments must be submitted to the EPA by May 14, 2011. However, the EPA anticipates making another draft of the guidance available for public comment during the Spring of 2012.


David A. Brooks is Counsel to the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

NJDEP Site Remediation Implements Steps to Increase Permit Efficiency

One perennial criticism leveled at the Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) is that it takes too long to issue permits. There have been a long list of initiatives intended to ensure that the NJDEP makes permit decisions which are predictable and timely. Indeed, Commissioner Martin has repeatedly commented on the need to ensure that NJDEP perform efficiently and focus on servicing all stakeholders - including applicants, and included this goal in his 2010 Vision Statement for the department. At long last, NJDEP appears to be taking concrete steps to implement efficiencies in the permit process. On January 27, 2011, NJDEP announced that it would begin to tackle this problem by changing the way it processes the most common land-use permits for contaminated sites and landfill closures.

Effective February 1, 2011, applications for land use permits such as Freshwater Wetlands, Flood Hazard and CAFRA will be processed by a special unit within the Site Remediation Group. The Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology has dealt with many of these issues over the years and will now process all land use permits for remediation projects ranging from site clean-up to landfill closure.

The lack of timely permits can be especially frustrating for potentially responsible parties engaged in the process of site investigation and remediation. When clean-ups involve environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, flood hazard areas or riparian lands, companies can be whipsawed between the need to quickly investigate and respond to a perceived threat to human health or the environment and delays while approved clean-up plans undergo environmental permit review.

NJDEP’s announcement promises some relief to this problem. Although this change in procedures is not the “one stop shopping” which the regulated community often seeks, if it proves successful, it can only help speed the pace of clean-ups and may help return distressed real property to productive use.

USEPA Soliciting Comments on Guidance for Institutional Controls

Institutional controls, regulatory limits on human activity at a site, go by many names. The Department of Defense uses the term “land use controls.” ASTM E2091-00 has elected to use the phase “activity and use limitations.” Traditional real estate lawyers often think in terms of “covenants” or “easements.” Here in New Jersey, the Site Remediation Program uses the term “Deed Notice,” while the Freshwater Wetlands Permit Program has adopted the term “Conservation Restriction or Easement,” N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.4. Whatever name they go by, institutional controls are intended to regulate human behavior and are used to supplement environmental remediation efforts by reducing the risk of unintended exposure to residual contamination. As a result, institutional controls are critical to the redevelopment of contaminated real estate and cost-effective clean-ups.

There is an ongoing debate over the effectiveness of institutional controls. Regulators, responsible parties and environmental practitioners are increasingly aware of the costs and challenges of using institutional controls. EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has recently issued a preliminary draft second in what is intended to be a series of guidance documents governing the use institutional controls. EPA is soliciting public comment on this interim guidance document.

EPA’s November 2010 Interim Final Draft is entitled “Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites.” This document outlines EPA policy regarding institutional controls. The guidance document also presents a discussion of long-term site “stewardship” and enforcement options. EPA, like its state counterparts, is increasing focused on enforcement issues.

EPA is collecting comments on this guidance document. Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2011. Regardless of whether you plan to comment, environmental practitioners who advise clients on redevelopment and clean-up issues should be aware of EPA’s guidance on these issues.

What is NJ's LSRP?

After over a year since its creation, the nature of New Jersey’s Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) is still unclear. The program, signed into law in May 2009, removes the responsibility for oversight of clean-ups of contaminated sites from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to a cadre of licensed privately paid professionals. NJDEP will retain direct oversight of more complex sites and will resume direct oversight of LSRP sites under certain circumstances. It will take some time for the kinks in the program to be worked out. Depending on who you speak to, the view of what the LSRP is differs.

When the idea was first proposed, the environmental groups were convinced that the LSRP would be the proverbial “fox in the henhouse.” The concern was based on the fact that the LSRP is selected and paid by the responsible party - the polluter - in the view of these groups. The LSRP decides what needs to be done, how to do it, how much money will be needed to assure the clean-up and when the clean-up is finished. The final “sign off,” the Response Action Outcome (“RAO”) is issued by the LSRP. The RAO gives the responsible party a covenant not to sue by the NJDEP with respect to the property which was remediated.

In December of 2009, Jeff Tittel, Executive Director of New Jersey Sierra Club complained, “The LSRP program is much worse than the fox guarding the henhouse. It’s the fox building the henhouse and certifying that it’s safe.”

NJDEP would like the LSRP to be a deputized case manager, an environmental watchdog. NJDEP needed the program because of the extensive backlog of cases and timelines of cleanup running into years. NJDEP simply did not have the manpower to handle all of the cases. Under the program, the LSRP is not free to do what s/he pleases. A remediation of a site in the LSRP program is subject to mandatory deadlines, which recently had to be extended and the LSRP must adhere to detailed technical regulations, use presumptive remedies and follow any available and appropriate technical guidelines issued by the department. The work and the RAO are subject to audit by NJDEP for three years. The LSRP’s highest priority in his or her professional performance is the protection of public health and safety and the environment. In NJDEP’s view, apparently, the LSRP should be the environment’s loyal and dutiful guard dog.

To ensure that the highest priority is respected, the LSRP will be licensed by a professional board that has extensive authority over the LSRP, including issuing standards for professional conduct, investigating complaints, imposing discipline and maintaining lists of LSRP’s in good standing and suspended professionals. The board may revoke licenses and impose civil penalties and petition the attorney general to bring a criminal action against an LSRP.

The responsible party has a different perspective. In the past, an environmental consultant was a knowledgeable and trusted advisor. Their role included acting as the responsible party’s advocate in the face of what often seemed like excessive sampling demands and overly expensive remedies required by NJDEP. Under the LSRP program, this relationship has changed significantly. LSRP’s highest priority is not service to the client, but protection of public health and the environment. The statute imposes a duty on the LSRP to report any action or decision of the client that results in a deviation from the remedial action workplan or other report, a duty to report any discharge he sees on a site he is responsible for, and a duty to report an immediate environmental concern even for sites s/he is not responsible for. All information and documents reviewed and relied on in connection with the remediation must be disclosed to NJDEP. Moreover, the LSRP has a responsibility to make a good faith and reasonable effort to to obtain relevant facts, data, reports and other information in possession of the owner or otherwise available. Although the statue provides for protecting “confidential information” designated so in writing by the client, it is unclear whether the reporting requirement would trump that confidence. Among the responsible party group, there is a concern that the role prescribed for the LSRP by the statute and regulations is that of the rat.

And what of the LSRP’s perspective? In the face of the statutory requirements, licensing and prescriptive tech regulations, as well as scrutiny from NJDEP and a licensing board, the LSRP also finds himself on the front lines of liability. In the past, all remediation decisions had to be approved by NJDEP. If something went wrong down the line, as long as the consultant had done the work correctly, an error in where sampling took place or a remedy failure, wasn’t the consultant’s fault….the decision had been NJDEP’s. That “shield” is no longer there. All of the relevant decisions will now be made by the LSRP. Moreover, unlike other professionals, the LSRP does not have the protection of the affidavit of merit. Little wonder some of the LSRPs worry that they will end up as scapegoats, with everyone blaming them.

Only time will tell what the ultimate role of the LSRP will be. And since the use of an LSRP will be mandatory for most remediations in N.J. on or after May 7, 2012, that time is coming soon.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Muddied Waters - EPA's Stormwater Rules for Construction Projects

Roman lawyers were timed by water clocks which they realized could be slowed by the addition of dirt or sand and thereby gaining more time to argue. Hence lawyers are often cited for “muddying the waters.” In the case challenging the US Environmental Protection Agency’s stormwater rules for construction sites, it is the court that has muddied the waters. By holding the suit in abeyance, but keeping the problematic standard in place, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has managed to confuse all of the parties.

The USEPA issued construction stormwater rules in December 2009, which were immediately challenged by the National Association of Home Builders and Wisconsin Builders Association in the Seventh Circuit as concerns the numeric turbidity value. The rules were scheduled to go into effect on February 1, 2010. EPA then filed an unopposed motion to vacate the numeric limitation pending a study to issue a new rule in November 2012. The Seventh Circuit essentially denied the motion as to vacating the numeric turbidity standard but apparently agreed to hold the suit in abeyance until February 2012 by granting the EPA’s motion “to the extent that the case is remanded to the EPA for further proceedings.” Thus, the numeric limitation stands: it is enforceable even though EPA has admitted in its brief that the process by which it was developed was flawed. A truly muddy situation.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

USEPA Issues Plan for Encouraging Reuse of Land Fills and Mines for Renewable Energy Development

On October 15, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) released a draft plan addressing its RE Powering Americas Land Initiative. The Initiative is designed to encourage development of renewable energy projects on current and formerly contaminated land and mine sites. The plan focuses on providing useful resources for communities, developers, industry, state and local governments or anyone interested in reusing such sites for renewable energy development.

The tools on the USEPA website include mapping and fact sheets for sites where USEPA and the U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Lab are analyzing the potential for wind, solar, or small hydro development. The mapping tool provides USEPA’s site name and identification information, the program managing the site; a link to the site's cleanup status information; and specific acreage and renewable energy resource information. Another interactive map offers information on the various federal and state incentives available for such projects.

As part of the plan, USEPA will reach out to prospective developers and investors though meetings and webinars. The first such webinar is scheduled for October 21, 2010, at 3:00 pm EDT. It will provide an overview of how siting renewable energy on brownfields benefits communities and how local governments can strategically plan for renewable energy siting on contaminated sites. Speakers will discuss their experiences on siting renewable energy project on contaminated sites, including challenges and advantages associated with using contaminated land.

Over time, hundreds of thousands of properties and millions of acres across the country have been damaged by pollution. Reusing these properties for renewable energy could allow these unproductive properties to be returned to sustainable and beneficial uses that are protective of health and the environment.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Irv Freilich and Susanne Peticolas to Speak on New Jersey's LSRP Program at ABA Regional CLE Workshop

Irv Freilich and Susanne Peticolas, Directors in Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be panelists at ABA’s upcoming Regional CLE Workshop on October 27, 2010, titled "The Road Ahead: The Obstacles and Pitfalls to New Jersey’s Implementation of the LSRP Program" at Seton Hall Law School. For more information or to register for the program, click here.

The program will feature interactive panels composed of nationally known environmental lawyers, in-house counsel and consultants who will discuss the details and implications of New Jersey’s Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA), and in particular the newly minted Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program. The impact of the LSRP program on environmental practitioners will be far reaching and extraordinary. From the manner in which environmental consultants will be retained and site investigations and clean-ups accomplished, to the ethical, work product and litigation considerations counsel will need to evaluate and address, the LSRP Program represents a sea-change in the way environmental counsel will practice their trade in the years to come.

The program has already dramatically changed the relationship between the environmental consultant and the client and raised the specter of frivolous suits from disgruntled clients. In addition, NJ Department of Environmental Protection has had to propose revisions to the SRRA interim rules relaxing certain remediation deadlines. These developments highlight the complex issues presented by the transition of New Jersey’s site remediation process from NJDEP command and control to private oversight by LSRPs and underscore the need to keep abreast of a rapidly developing area.

NJDEP Proposes Relief From Site Remediation Reform Act Requirements

On October 4, 2010, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) formally proposed revisions to the Site Remediation Reform Act’s (SRRA) interim rules. The revisions impact two important components of the interim rules: remediation deadlines and vapor intrusion investigations. These technical amendments are based upon stakeholder input and are intended to reduce the burden on the regulated community and New Jersey’s newly minted Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRPs). The rule proposal appeared in the New Jersey Register on October 4, 2010 and can be viewed online. Comments can be submitted until December 3, 2010.

When adopting the SRRA, the New Jersey Legislature created a special enforcement mechanism called “direct oversight.” When a site, phase of the clean-up process or condition at the site warrants “direct oversight,” all of the key decisions - especially remedy selection - are made by NJDEP. In direct oversight the responsible party simply pays the bills - NJDEP makes the decisions. The SRRA also provides that when the responsible party misses a remediation milestone, then NJDEP must exercise direct oversight. N.J.S.A. 58:10C-27.

NJDEP’s pending rule proposal relaxes three important remediation milestones established by the interim rules. N.J.A.C. 7:26C-3.3.:

  • the deadline for submitting preliminary assessment reports,
  • the deadline for immediate environmental concern source control,
  • and the deadline for installing free product removal technology at sites containing non-aqueous phase liquids, (generally to March 1, 2011 at the earliest).

The proposed rule is designed to reduce the risk of triggering mandatory direct oversight because of insufficient time to meet prescribed deadlines.

The second part of the proposed rule amends NJDEP’s long-standing Vapor Intrusion Program. The proposed rule establishes a new class of vapor intrusion investigations (called “Vapor Concern Cases”) and adjusts the way indoor air screening levels are applied as well as certain deadlines for action to respond to vapor intrusion. The vapor intrusion rules remain complex and cumbersome. Nevertheless, these amendments can provide additional time to evaluate the situation and implement mitigation.

These proposed new rules underscore the complex issues presented by the transition of New Jersey’s site remediation process from NJDEP command and control to private oversight by LSRPs. The regulated community should support these rules as well as NJDEP’s general efforts to respond to stakeholder comments. All parties must be mindful that the interim package of SRRA regulations -- adopted on an emergency basis in November 2009 -- expire on May 4, 2011. The real action will happen in the coming months when the permanent SRRA rule proposal hits the streets.

Tic, TAC, No Dough for Innocent Landowner in NJ Who Sells Property Before Brownfield Grant

Last year, the Appellate Division in TAC Associates v. NJDEP, 408 N.J. Super. 117 (App. Div. 2009) had held that an applicant under the NJ Brownfield Innocent Party Grant, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-5, need not be a landowner at the time of application for such grant. In so ruling, the Appellate Division invalidated NJDEP regulations that imposed an ownership requirement, a requirement absent from the underlying statute.

In January of 2010, the legislature amended the Act to require that the landowner must acquire the property before 1983 and own it until application is made for a grant and the application is granted. On July 15, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division in TAC, holding that the “after the fact” amendment by the legislature clarified the intent of the legislation which the NJDEP gleaned in issuing its regulations.

Justice Rivera-Soto, in dissent, criticized the ruling,

The unvarnished and ugly truth is that, recognizing their error, defendants [NJDEP and NJEDA] scurried -- four years after the fact, six and one-half months after their position had been rebuffed by the Appellate Division, and while this appeal was pending before this Court -- to have the Legislature ratify rules defendants adopted that plainly exceeded the original statutory mandate.

With brownfields property, the greatest difficulty is obtaining funds. Often the purchaser is interested in obtaining the property and having it cleaned up, but not in funding it. This holding restricts who can actually get grants. Grants defray, but do not cover the costs of cleanup. Owners who may have held property for over 27 years must continue to hold it until the application is granted and cannot have the benefit of the sales proceeds until the sale is consummated. It frequently takes years to get a grant approved.

This ruling will undoubtedly limit the number of eligible grantees. Indeed, that seems to be the point. As NJDEP and NJEDA asserted in their successful argument for reversal, “the Appellate Division’s holding would create a financial strain on the State and on the HDSRF [Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund] by expanding eligibility for grants to a broader array of applicants.”


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

EPA Announces Award of Brownfields Grants

On April 19, EPA announced awards of a total of nearly $80 million in grants to communities across the country to support the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfield sites. Twelve of the grants, totalling $2.3 million, will go to New Jersey communities, including Camden, Jersey City, Newark, and Trenton.


Content for this blog post is authored by the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.