A legislative oversight committee on Thursday released a bill that seeks to reel in what many in the business community view as a runaway regulatory regime at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection.

The legislation, A-2464, prohibits state agencies from using guidance documents as regulatory enforcement tools and requires that all such documents be posted on the NJDEP’s website. While the legislation would apply to all agencies, it was clear from testimony at the Assembly Oversight and Gaming Committee that the NJDEP was the principal target for the measure.

DEP Assistant Commissioner Irene Kropp was defensive about the need for guidance documents, explaining that they cover a wide field of communications. Some of them, she said, are informative, rather than regulatory, and are designed to help businesses understand what is required to of them to conform with agency regulations. Others are required by federal and state regulations.Kropp then said that the guidance documents have become the focus of greater attention since they’ve been published to address the state’s new Licensed Site Remediation Professional program. She said the Department found the documents were necessary to assist newly licensed LSRPs “so they understand what they need to do so that enforcement action isn’t taken against them.” But, before wrapping up her abbreviated testimony, Kropp slipped in a bombshell of a news bulletin.

She told the committee that Acting DEP Commissioner Bob Martin has decided to adopt an Administrative Order directing all DEP assistant commissioners and managers to develop guidance documents “that are truly best management practices..that an environmental professionals and LSRP can use to determine the best approach using their professional judgment and provide some flexibility” on strictly technical issues.”

She said those guidance documents “will not contain environmental standards or requirements that will be enforceable.” Anything falling into the latter categories, she said “will be put into regulation.”

This represents a radical shift of thinking at the DEP and reflects
the new direction that the administration of Gov. Chris Christie says is necessary make the Department less of a hurdle for business as he endeavors to turn around the state’s failing economy.The news should be welcomed not only to LSRPs who have feared that guidance documents would be interpreted as inflexible enforceable standards, but also for other consultants who complain that the department often makes unilateral shifts in its requirements with limited scientific basis and no advance notice to the regulated community.Attorney Neil Yoskin told the committee this can lead to situations where a business can “submit an application on a Monday only to find out that the standard had changed the Friday before.”

Hal Bozarth, executive director of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey congratulated sponsor (ad committee chairman) John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) for introducing the bill and the DEP for its shift in policy on guidance documents.

He said that the chemical companies he represents provided 80,000 jobs just seven years ago with salaries averaging $95,000.

“Today we’re down to 63,000 and fading fast,” said Bozarth.

Bozarth asserted that DEP regulations in the last decade have been “strangling manufacturing to death” and that jobs have fled to other states “that reformed their regulatory structure to make sure they weren’t driving investment out.”

Representatives of several environmental groups, including Environment New Jersey, the American Littoral Society, NJ Environmental Federation, Sierra Club and PEER expressed reservations about the legislation and no doubt will escalate their opposition when the bill heads to an Assembly floor vote.

To hear all the committee testimony, click hereWhat do you think about the legislation and the Acting DEP Commissioner’s impending order on guidance documents?
Share you thoughts in the opinion box below. If one is not visible, click on the tiny ‘comments’ line to activate it.

Related:
Committee ponders limits of state agencies’ regulations
NJDEP Site Remediation Reform Act Guidance

Our most recent posts:
Marcellus Shale drilling pumping up in PA
EPA reports funding for new sites in PA, NY & NY
Marcellus hydrofracking critics appeal to the EPA
Action today on NJ environmental legislation
Need help bringing your energy idea to market?

———————————————————–
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics – Try it free for 30 days

So, just how bullish is the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania?

Try this metric:

In the 28 days of February 2010, 26 new wells were drilled in Bradford County, PA alone.

Meanwhile, Chesapeake Appalachia of Oklahoma City is ready to begin drilling a total of five wells, two in North Fayette, Beaver County, and three in neighboring Robinson Township in
Washington County.

The latest surge in drilling applications and operations adds to the already bustling activity in Pennsylvania.

All this hasn’t escaped the notice of international investors. According to the Pittsburgh Business Times, several international firms have signed joint venture agreements to fund the development of Marcellus Shale acreage held by U.S. companies with regional operations.

More are likely to follow, as firms active in the shale, like Atlas Energy, seek such partnerships.

The upsurge of economic activity has one Democratic State Senator in Pennsylvania calling for a new tax on gas drilling. The Daily Times reports:

“Sen. Andy Dinniman, D-19th, of West Whiteland, has introduced legislation that would impose a tax on Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction and use the revenues from that tax to give Pennsylvania homeowners property tax rebates. Dinniman said a 5 percent tax on the natural gas from the state’s Marcellus Shale reserves would, by 2014, provide the average homeowner $148 each year in property tax relief. “

The other side of the Marcellus boom–environmental impacts

Some 63 environmental organizations, concerned by the potential negative impacts of a controversial drilling method called hydrofracking, used to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, have called on the federal EPA to investigate the technique.

The petition comes on the heels of reports of environmental risks associated with the drilling. A good primer on the subject is Natural Gas Drilling: What We Don’t Know by the independent investigative journalism organization, Pro Publica.

Some environmental critics say that Pennsylvania, seeking to plug holes in the state’s budget and add create jobs in a time of economic stress, has been too accommodating to the gas industry–especially in the number of state drilling leases allowed in thousands of acres of state forests.

What do you think? Should Pennsylvania slow down the awarding of drilling permits until more state oversight and environmental safeguards can be put into place? Is New York State’s more deliberate approach in adopting environmental regulations governing Marcellus operations preferable? Should Pennsylvania continue to increase the number of drilling leases awarded in state forest lands? Should the state impose a tax on natural gas drilling? And, if so, where should the money go? To balance the state budget? To beef up DEP oversight? To provide property tax relief to all state residents? Other uses?

Share your thoughts in the opinion box below. If one isn’t visible, activate it by clicking on the tiny ‘comments’ line. You can attach your name or respond anonymously.

Related:
26 wells drilled in Bradford County in February
Statoil secures capacity in US markets
Marcellus landowner urged to seek a deal
Chesco pol proposes tax on Marcellus Shale gas reserves
The natural gas land rush is on in NY and PA
Drill, Baby Drill!
Controversial path to possible glut of natural gas
State files show 270 drilling accidents in past 30 years
Fears raised over process of extraction
Opinion:Drilling: Use Extra Caution


Our most recent posts:
EPA reports funding for new sites in PA, NY & NY
Marcellus hydrofracking critics appeal to the EPA
Action today on NJ environmental legislation
Need help bringing your energy idea to market?
Jon Corzine on Toyota, deficit, Goldman Sachs

In its annual Superfund summary released today, the EPA provided a list of sites across the nation that received new construction funding in FY 2009. The list includes seven sites in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

*Emmell’s Septic Landfill – Galloway Township, NJ
*Imperial Oil Company, Inc. – Morganville, NJ
*Monitor Devices, Inc. – Wall Township, NJ
*Price Landfill – Pleasantville, NJ
*Old Roosevelt Field – Garden City, NY
*Crossley Farm – Hereford Township, PA
*Havertown PCP – Haverford, PA

In Fiscal Year 2009, which ended on September 30, the federal agency reports the completion of all of its construction projects at 20 sites, for a cumulative total of 1,080. That accounts for 67 percent of the top priority sites ranked on the National Priorities List.

The program added 20 new sites and proposes to added 23 more.

One of the most newsworthy additions was Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. The EPA reported finding contamination along the entire length of the clouded 1.8-mile canal in a preliminary assessment, including pesticides, metals and the cancer-causing chemicals known as PCBs.

The remediation is expected to take 10 to 12 years to complete and will cost $300 million to $500 million.

Related environmental news:
EPA Announces Superfund Cleanup Progress for FY 2009
Gowanus Canal Gets Superfund Status
Gowanus Canal Named Superfund Site
EPA takes charge of 10 more toxic Superfund sites

Our most recent posts:
Action today on NJ environmental legislation Need help bringing your energy idea to market?
Jon Corzine on Toyota, deficit, Goldman Sachs
Enviros: EPA understates coal ash problem
Environmental Events Calendar for NJ & PA

———————————————————–
Like this? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics – Try it free for 30 days