TRENTON (December 21, 2007) - The New Jersey Schools Development Authority (SDA) is launching an initiative to ensure that its environmental engineering consultants are fully aware of the most current and comprehensive methods of evaluating properties where polychlorinated biphenyls, better known as PCBs, may be present.
The SDA's initiative to heighten awareness of PCB-containing materials and items stems from recent discussions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding a Consent Agreement and Final Order being finalized between SDA and EPA. The agreement will resolve alleged violations of EPA regulations regarding the proper marking, labeling and storage of PCB-containing items and materials. The alleged violations were based on events between December 2003 and September 2005 at the former Norpak Corporation property in Trenton. The Norpak property was acquired by SDA’s predecessor, the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, as a site for the future Roebling School. While under the terms of the Consent Agreement and Final Order, the SDA will neither admit nor deny the EPA’s allegations, the Authority fully concurs that improvements can be made to its environmental consultant program to achieve more efficient assessment and disposal of PCB-containing items.
"The SDA and the EPA share a common objective – the protection of public health," said Scott Weiner, CEO of the SDA. "Ensuring that our consultants demonstrate heightened sensitivity to this issue, and requiring more robust investigation standards, will help meet that objective. The Authority will continue to escalate efforts in dealing with the challenges of urban sites and to ensure we make full use of lessons learned."
Steps by the SDA are geared toward ensuring that potential sources of PCBs are identified early in a demolition or construction project, that testing and disposal occur promptly after such potential sources are identified, and that the relevant authorities are properly notified of PCB-handling activities in a timely fashion.
Generally, the assessment of PCBs in building materials and fixtures is not a routine practice, nor is it currently required by law. However, the SDA has long required that its environmental consultants evaluate developed properties to identify certain building elements, namely older industrial lighting fixtures and electrical transformers, which are recognized as the most common sources of PCB-containing material.
According to the EPA, more than 1.5 billion pounds of PCBs were produced in the United States before manufacturing ended in the late 1970s. Due to their excellent electrical insulating properties and durability, PCBs were widely used in electrical equipment such as transformers. Use of PCBs was banned upon discovery of various human health effects. In discussions with SDA representatives, EPA inspectors disclosed that they now believe that PCBs might be present in more building materials than previously suspected.
Using EPA's recent PCB Inspection Manual as a comprehensive reference, the SDA is initiating training of its environmental engineering consultants and staff on the proper inspection, identification, notification and disposal practices for PCBs. This training is intended to alert consultants to the potential presence of PCBs in building materials, besides light fixtures and transformers, that are not commonly understood to contain PCBs.
The SDA also has enhanced its environmental consultant contracts to ensure that consultants provide specific guidance to the Authority for timely marking, labeling and disposal of PCB items and substances when encountered at a site, as required under federal and state regulation.
The SDA considers the alleged violations, which are technical in nature and minor in scope, to be due largely to the failure of Norpak to properly mark, label and dispose of obsolete transformers. The SDA also believes its consultants have liability in the matter and will be seeking reimbursement of the amounts paid in settlement of the violations. The SDA has consented to a $60,000 civil penalty in settlement of the matter.
|