PA Brownfields Environmental Law : Pennsylvania Environmental Law & Brownfields Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Philadelphia PA

As previously reported, the state operating budget for PADEP took a large hit in the budget recently signed into law by Governor Rendell.  The corresponding reduction in Department personnel will undoubtedly have an impact on brownfield redevelopment activities in Pennsylvania.   Fewer personnel at PADEP means fewer people to review and approve Act 2 plans, reports and environmental covenants.  It also means fewer people to review and approve air, water, stormwater and waste permits needed by developers to put brownfield sites back into productive reuse.  The result of a reduced budget could be unpredictable review times as program  managers scramble to find the necessary resources to get the job done.

In addition to the cuts at PADEP, significant cuts were made at the Department of Community and Economic Development which has historically provided grants to economic development agencies for  environmental assessments and remediations at brownfield sites in Pennsylvania.  The budget for PADCED dropped dramatically from $567 million to $264 million in this budget cycle.  Included among those cuts was a zeroing out for the Industrial Sites Environmental Assessment Fund (a loss of $493,000) and a zeroing out for the Keystone Innovation Zones (a loss of $543,000).  Marketing budgets for attracting business have been slashed, as have other grant and loan programs used to attract new businesses to Pennsylvania.  Community Revitalization, previously at $39.5 million, has been eliminated entirely, as has $18.75 million for Urban Development.

In looking over the list of line items in the new budget for PADCED, I did not see any line item for the Industrial Sites Reuse Program.    The ISR program had typically been funded annually at the $5 million level and it had been used to provide assessment and remediation grants under Act 2.  I'm not sure if that money has been put into some other fund or if it has been eliminated entirely.  I have a call into the PADCED grants office to see if I can get some answers regarding the future of the ISR fund.  If it is gone, that will be a real loss to the county redevelopment authorities that have successfully used those funds to reclaim brownfield sites across the Commonwealth.  It will also be a great loss to the brownfield redevelopers who have partnered with those redevelopment authorities and brought life back to some blighted properties. 

It's possible that redevelopment and economic development agencies will be able to tap into other state grant funds to use for brownfield assessments and cleanup.  I'll be looking into that as well.  Absent state money, federal brownfield dollars will have to fill those gaps, and we may all have to learn to live with the extra strings that are attached to those federal brownfield dollars.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Ohio EPA recently announced a new program designed to provide lower cost environmental insurance to brownfield developers remediating sites in Ohio's voluntary brownfield program.   The news release issued by Ohio EPA states that it has signed a memorandum of understanding with three insurance carriers (ACE Environmental Risk, American Insurance Company and Navigator's Specialty Insurance Company) relating to their offering discounted insurance to applicants taking their sites through the states Voluntary Action Program.   The discounts are 10 percent off the typical cost of the premium.  Environmental insurance policies can be expensive for brownfield remediation projects, so a discounted policy would provide an additional incentive.  I know that PADEP had pursued discussions with insurance carriers about a similar pooling arrangement, but I don't think those discussions came to fruition.  There is no information on PADEP's website about any similar insurance program fro Pennsylvania brownfield sites.  Now that Ohio has rolled out its program, it would be a good time for PADEP to take a look to see if that program can be adapted to fit Pennsylvania's brownfield program.  Maybe the three insurance carriers could be convinced to provide similar discounts to brownfield remediators in the Commonwealth.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

PADEP's state operating budget is being cut by 26.7%, according to information I received today.  What does that translate into in terms of reduced compliment at the Department?  I'm told that it's estimated PADEP will lose 325 real people.  How the Department will get its work done with those cuts on top of other cuts that have occurred over the last few years is going to be a topic of much conversation both inside and outside the Department.  I'm told the Department may have to consider handing programs back to EPA.  What's it going to mean for brownfield developers?  Will brownfield developers feel any of those cuts?  Undoubtedly they will.  Fewer DEP staffers mean fewer people to review Act 2 plans and reports.  It also means fewer people to review and approve permit applications necessary for development projects, i.e., air permits, water permits, NPDES stormwater construction permits.  The Department may have to resort to something it has previously tried to avoid, namely, allowing plans and permits to be deemed approved because the Department hasn't met its statutory review deadlines.  The Department is going to be entering uncharted waters with this new budget, and we'll all have to be watching closely to see how it is going to affect individual programs.            

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dave Hess just wrote on his blog that the PA Senate earlier today confirmed the following individuals as members of the Environmental Hearing Board:  Thomas W. Renwand, Michelle Coleman, Michael Krancer, and Richard Mather.  I spoke with Dave a few minutes ago and he confirmed the information.  The new appointments mean that Judge Krancer has been returned to the EHB, having previously stepped down as Chief Judge to run for the PA Supreme Court.  Rick Mather is currently the Deputy Chief Counsel for PADEP in Harrisburg.  He has a lifetime of experience within the Department and is an excellent addition to the Board.  I have worked with Rick and he has good judgment and I expect a good judicial temperment.   The fifth remaining member is Judge Bernie Labuskas, whose term had not expired.   The new appointments also mean that Judge George Miller's tenure on the EHB has now ended.  There isn't enough time to review Judge Miller's accomplishments or to properly thank him for being an outstanding jurist.  He arrived on the EHB having left private practice in 1995, where Jim Seif and I worked with George where he was chair of our environmental practice group.  We knew George would make an excellent Judge because of his skills and training as an environmental lawyer, his collegial attitude, and his general nature as what people used to refer to as being "a Philadelphia lawyer."  Judge Miller was my mentor at my former firm and I used to enjoy popping down into his office for a chat when I was on the 16th floor of the Rachel Carson Building and he was down on the second floor.   At my former firm, Judge Miller used to affectionately call me "Lad".  At DEP, he used to enjoy calling me Mr. Deputy Secretary.  In many ways, I wouldn't be where I am or who I am without the guidance I received from Judge Miller.  He is everything someone who calls themselves an environmental lawyer should strive to be -- honest, hardworking, knowledgeable, experienced, collegial, good-natured, and respectful to all.  To Judge Miller I fondly say, you can be proud of your accomplishments on the Environmental Hearing Board, which go beyond the decisions you've written and go directly to the respect you've earned from all those who practiced before you.      

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Department has posted on its website some proposed changes to the regulations for the Land Recycling Program.   They can be found on the home page for the Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board.

The proposed regulatory changes are "for discussion purposes only."  They have not been sent to the Environmental Quality Board. 

The most significant items are as follows:  (1) many of the statewide health standards for soil and groundwater will be revised to reflect changes to the methodologies used by US EPA in calculating MCLs;  (2) the vapor intrusion guidance is incorporated by reference into the regulations; and (3) the Department will explicitly recognize that groundwater samples taken for characterization purposes can be used for purposes of demonstrating attainment.      

In terms of revising the cleanup standards, in looking through the charts it is clear that some numbers will go up and some will go down.  The one change that jumped out at me was the proposed new statewide health standard for MTBE in groundwater which will go from 20 ppb to 190 ppb for residential and 960 ppb for non-residential properties.  At many brownfield sites where petroleum products are the contaminant of concern, MTBE can be the driver in delaying closure of the site.  That is likely to change if and when the new standards are adopted. 

With regard to statewide health standards that are proposed to be decreased, I was told by Troy Conrad, the Director of the Land Recycling Program, that the Department has no intention of reopening any Act 2 releases at sites that demonstrated attainment under the existing statewide health standards.  Those releases are valid, having been obtained under the standards existing at the time the Act 2 Final Report was approved.  Moreover, those releases recognize that the sites are safe and protective of human health and the environment, and PADEP is right to leave those releases alone.  It would be a real nightmare for the Department and for brownfield redevelopers to have to revisit each and every site where a release was obtained from the onset of the Land Recycling Program almost 15 years ago.   

Inasmuch as the cleanup standards will be changing, environmental consultants and brownfield redevelopers in Pennsylvania would be smart to look at the proposed changes to the Chapter 250 regulations that are now on the Department's website to see if those changes will have any effect on current and future brownfield remediation projects.          

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks