could someone please suggest a more descriptive subject line, or lookup the headline that the star ledger used, then I will change it. Thanks.

A toxic solution for DEP oversight
Posted by The Star-Ledger Editorial Board February 02, 2009 6:10AM
Categories: Environment

JENNIFER BROWN/THE STAR-LEDGER
A chromium cleanup site in Jersey City.A new bill proposes changing the way the state Department of Environmental Protection handles toxic site cleanups. Under the bill, the company responsible for cleaning up a contaminated site would also hire a consultant to certify that the job was done correctly.

That's right, instead of sending someone from DEP out to inspect the site, the state would rely on a contractor hired by the polluter.

The change is based on the Massachusetts DEP model that has all but eliminated that state's backlog, getting 4,000 cases "in and out every year," according to Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex), the primary sponsor of the bill.


New Jersey, on the other hand, has a backlog of over 25,000 sites requiring remediation, including brownfields and underground storage sites, he said.

Smith said DEP would take charge of oversight only for the "most complex sites," such as the cleanup of chromium in Jersey City.

He dismissed the idea that the new process has the potential to be easily corrupted. The new bill establishes a board to license the environmental consultants who would certify the sites.

"Their licenses would be in jeopardy if the site was not remediated according to law," he said.

He calls it a better, more efficient process: "In these times of limited budgets and shrinking staffs, it's part of an economic recovery process for New Jersey."

After years of cutbacks, DEP is "definitely a shadow of its former self," he said.

But in the next breath, he expressed confidence that DEP would be able to audit the contractors to make sure they don't overlook shortcomings in the cleanups.

Green groups are up in arms. "There have to be changes, but privatization is not the answer," said Jeff Tittel, director of the NJ Sierra Club, who called for more safeguards in the bill.

For example, insurance should be required as part of the process, so taxpayers aren't left with the bill if contamination is discovered after a site has been certified as "clean."

Tittel also would like to see the new process limited to simple clean-ups, such as underground storage tanks; remediation at sites where pollution could threaten homes and schools should stay under DEP control, he said.

We believe the move to outsource such an important part of DEP's regulatory duties is ill-advised.

Cost-saving measures are welcome in these tough times, but not if they open the door to abuses and neglect.

How soon before we hear about a site that "fell through the cracks" because random audits didn't quite do the job?

Or a consultant comes forward to admit he was pressured or paid off to sign off on a site?

Lawmakers convening hearings on the bill today should carefully consider environmentalists' concerns.

Anyone who doubts the potential for damage inherent in deregulation and weakened oversight need look no further than the collapse of Wall Street.