Some organizations continue to believe a persistent myth that a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) is required to report all discharges to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Environmental Action Line. Although much has been written to debunk it, the myth persists.

As a result of the reporting myth, the use of LSRPs or their firms for due diligence, even though the LSRP meets the Environmental Professional definition in accordance with the USEPA All Appropriate Inquiry Rule, is often precluded in the governing contract.by the seller or by the facility operator. This is also extended to other on-site environmental consulting tasks because of the same misconception. Not using the most qualified environmental professionals in these instances is short-sighted decision making that often results in delays, duplication of effort and significant added costs to all parties.

In actuality, the blanket reporting requirement of any quantity of a “known or suspected” discharge of a hazardous material falls to all owners and operators under the 1976 New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act and NJDEP regulations. In addition, licensed contractors and subsurface evaluators are required to report discharges associated with underground storage tanks (USTs) under the 1986 Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act and associated NJDEP UST regulations. These reporting requirements were not changed by the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) that created the LSRP program. Rather, SRRA differentiated the LSRP’s reporting obligations, and made an important exemption.

• An LSRP may observe a discharge during due diligence for a prospective purchaser, but is not required to report it to NJDEP. This exemption was made by the legislature in acknowledgement that LSRPs should be able to perform due diligence to provide the buyer with the documentation necessary to establish the innocent purchaser defense through completion of a Preliminary Assessment (PA) and, if indicated by the PA, a Site Investigation. This exemption has been upheld by the Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board (SRPLB) in dismissing a complaint against an LSRP that a discharge was not reported during due diligence.
• SRRA requires that the LSRP report discharges not previously known to NJDEP “…at sites for which he[/she] is responsible.” The term “LSRP of record,” as it has come to be used, was not in existence when SRRA was written and the concept of being responsible for the site or being “of record” was not defined in the statute. Being responsible for the site may be reasonably interpreted to mean that the LSRP has been retained to perform the investigation or remediation (together “remediation” as defined by NJDEP) of an Area of Concern (AOC) or the entire site, depending on the situation. The SRPLB did not clarify the legislative intent further when promulgating their regulations governing LSRPs. However, NJDEP has recently stated that an LSRP retained for a specific AOC is not required to report a discharge on another part of the property. Thus, an LSRP or firm that has been engaged to perform non-remediation related services such as geotechnical engineering, air permitting, or site planning would not be required to report a discharge discovered during the performance of these services unless also retained to perform the remediation.
• SRRA also requires that an LSRP report all Immediate Environmental Concerns (IECs) not previously known to NJDEP, regardless of whether the LSRP is responsible for the site or a related AOC. However, without the benefit of reliable laboratory data and known discharge, IECs are not readily discernable and are, therefore, highly unlikely to be encountered during due diligence or other non-remediation related site work.

In our practice, we often have been prevented from involvement in pre-purchase due diligence, or from even being on-site during sample collection, or even walk-through inspections prior to purchase, because of the seller’s unnecessary reliance on the discharge reporting myth. A seller’s reluctance to the disclosure of remedial needs concerning a property is understandable. Such revelations can adversely affect the real or perceived salability of the site or the possible sale price. Regardless, contracts can be prepared to acknowledge the LSRP’s role on behalf of the purchaser, i.e., that a suspected discharge does not need to be reported to NJDEP or even to the property owner, without exposing the seller to additional risk.

In cases where another firm has performed the due diligence, the LSRP’s subsequent review has often identified additional AOCs or determined that some AOCs were not investigated or remediated consistent with NJDEP’s regulations and guidance, resulting in additional delineation and remediation efforts, time and costs.  In many cases, the length of a due diligence period does not allow for complete records collection and/or historic usage review. Such matters are addressed in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment as “data gaps;” however, the LSRP’s responsibility for the site does not allow for data gaps and filling in those gaps can result in the identification of additional AOCs. If such AOCs existed but were not identified or investigated prior to the purchase of the property, they may become the responsibility of the purchaser due to the failure to conduct a full PA/SI and perfect the innocent purchaser defense. In that case, these additional investigation and remediation costs are unlikely to be recoverable after the fact.

A more sophisticated understanding of SRRA can allow the buyer and seller to dispel the reporting myth, develop a purchase contract that provides for proper due diligence and allow the experts of site remediation, the LSRPs, to function as intended by the legislature on behalf of the buyer. All of this will reduce the unnecessary duplication of effort, added time, and extra expense that is now commonplace. Further, performing other environmental services does not automatically trigger the discharge reporting obligation if the LSRP has not been retained to perform investigation or remediation of contamination at a site. There is no reason to preclude the LSRP as an environmental professional to perform due diligence.

– Rodger A. Ferguson, Jr., LSRP

PennJersey President Rodger Ferguson is an active member of the LSRPA Steering, Risk Management and Loss Prevention, and Regulatory Outreach Committees, and currently serves as the Treasurer of the organization and on its Board of Trustees. Mr. Ferguson is a key participant in NJDEP stakeholder groups established for the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, Remediation Standards, and guidance documents, including the committees established to evaluate alternative and clean fill material protocols (as stakeholder co-chair) as well as the quality assurance and analytical laboratory methodologies required for the investigation of contaminated sites. Mr. Ferguson earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Analytical Chemistry from Ursinus College in 1983 and has 30+ years’ experience in the environmental field. When Mr. Ferguson isn’t at the helm steering PennJersey, he enjoys spending time with his family, rescuing old houses, coaching lacrosse, and suffering with Philadelphia’s professional sports’ teams.
• Licensed Site Remediation Professional 573794
• UST Closure and Subsurface Evaluator 455706

Rags to Remediation is a content series written by PennJersey founder Richard J. Katz, LSRP, who brings forty-seven years of professional environmental services experience, outlining the rich history of PennJersey Environmental Consulting’s influence in the creation of environmental remediation services as they have come to be known today.

So, when we last left off, I was doing the weather on New Jersey Public Television when a scout from the ABC network affiliate in Austin, Texas 0 KVUE-TV – saw me. The scout called to set up an interview and I decided to take a chance. Lo and behold, I was offered the job and moved to sunny Austin, Texas as the meteorologist and science reporter for a major network. Although it was short-lived, being a weatherman was a pretty cool job. However, no matter how interesting, the notoriety never sat particularly well with me. After a year of being a local celebrity it was time to move on again.

The wonderful thing about having your relative youth is the ability to move when and where you please. I took a job offer from a meteorological consulting company in Chicago called MesoMet. My duties there included client support for airports, golf courses, and general businesses, with daily forecasts on specific meteorological effects influencing their activities. I also assisted at WLS-TV, another ABC affiliate- giving local weather presentations. This accounts for the next year of my professional life.

Then it was back to the NJDEP for the next seven years. I returned to New Jersey, working in the Program for Environmental Cancer and Toxic Substances; later renamed the Office of Cancer and Toxic Substances Research, which now exists as the Division of Science and Research. During this stint at the DEP, I was tasked with the oversight of department-supported investigations into volatile organics and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmosphere throughout NJ (fancy, I know). Upon the creation of the Division of Hazard Management, I was brought into the program as Assistant to the Director, supporting remediation activities throughout the department.

In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) was created and I had the “honor” of being appointed Chairman of the Superfund Applications Task Force. This task force put 85 NJ sites on the initial National Priorities List for cleanup using federal funds including Chemical Control, which exploded on Earth Day of 1980. The “cowboys” of Hazard Management had just finished cleaning out a bunch of picric acid drums from the attic when the site blew up. Picric acid (properly known as di-nitrotoluene) is the little brother to TNT. While, obviously, not what we would call a great thing, the explosion could have been much worse had we not gotten there prior. For a fun fact, we took a lot of grief over the disappearance of 22 respirators that night but got most of them back from the reporters we’d handed them out to when Duane Marine blew up two months later.

Some other notables: I helped develop the original Hazardous Sites Master List (compilation of all sites known to the department that involved the presence of hazardous materials) that has evolved into the Known Contaminated Sites List. After this the DEP morphed my role, due to my legendary people skills (cough, cough) and need for the spice of life that is variety, into a type of departmental startup specialist. I went from burgeoning department to burgeoning department, setting in place necessary guidelines and plans for functionality. As the department’s startup guy, I also worked in the Bureau of Engineering Review and Permitting, which would lead to my next semi-great adventure into the field of environmental remediation.

– Richard J. Katz, LSRP

Mr. Katz has a Master of Science in Environmental Science from Rutgers University and over 40 years of experience in the environmental field, acquired in the governmental, consulting and private sectors. Before that, however, he was an Air Force Officer, professional carpenter, and yes, even a weatherman in Austin, Texas. His accomplishments in the environmental field, however, outreach those by hundreds of miles. Under Mr. Katz, PennJersey was a charter member of the LSP Coalition that participated in crafting the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA). Mr. Katz was in the first group to be certified as a Licensed Site Remediation Professional and served on the Executive Committee of the LSRP Association Board of Trustees as the Board Secretary. Mr. Katz is now semi-retired, but is available to consult on matters as needed.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Land Recycling Program released revisions to the Technical Guidance Manual for Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under Act 2 on November 19, 2016; the new guidance will be effective January 18, 2017.  After the initial presentations by PADEP, PennJersey Environmental Consulting has reviewed the new guidance in detail.  While both agencies expect environmental professionals to use professional judgment, there are notable differences between the PADEP guidance and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance, version 4.0, that are worth discussing in terms of the policies and science.

• PADEP allows an interim modeling step to calculate potential indoor air concentrations from the sub-slab or near slab soil gas data and conservative attenuation factors. These modeling options include the Johnson and Ettinger model or the American Petroleum Institute’s BioVapor for petroleum releases. NJDEP’s guidance states that soil gas data should be compared to the applicable soil gas screening level but allows the development of site-specific soil gas screening levels using the Johnson and Ettinger model based on site-specific factors not reflected in the default screening levels.

• As with the rest of the PADEP Land Recycling Program, use of a human health risk assessment is permitted to develop site-specific standards for vapor intrusion, including the use of a 10^-4 cumulative cancer risk factor and a hazard index of 1. NJDEP allows human health risk assessment only in limited circumstances as specified in the Remediation Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:26D); modification of the toxicity data using less than a 10^-6 cancer risk for individual compounds, as well as the 10^-4 cumulative risk, is not allowed.

• Instead of the calendar-based “heating season” from November 1 – March 31 used by NJDEP for the collection of indoor air samples under a worst case condition, PADEP uses a temperature differential of 15 °F between the minimum indoor air and average outdoor temperature as the criterion for collecting indoor air data. Moreover, PADEP states that “If a building is not heated, then indoor air samples collected at any time of the year may be used for screening.” Investigators based in NJ have encountered data rejection if indoor air samples were collected as little as one week outside of the heating season, even if the weather dictated that the building was being heated and generating a stack effect. Alternatively, weather during the heating season may be warm enough that heating is not required during the day, and that windows are opened for ventilation – resulting in additional dilution of the indoor air and a low bias to the data compared to colder weather.

• PADEP allows mitigation to be performed at any time in the process in lieu of sampling and a complete evaluation of the VI pathway. Current or future plans for use of the inhabited building will determine the need for VI pathway evaluation. NJDEP allows the installation of mitigation systems using the assumption that the VI pathway is completed and requires mitigation; however, the investigator must report an Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC) and follow the regulatory and guidance provisions related to IECs. To avoid the “voluntary” IEC designation, the investigator would need to conduct the required receptor evaluation and collect sub-surface soil gas and indoor air samples to complete the receptor evaluation and prove that the mitigation is protective.

• PADEP’s guidance states that soils are a potential VI source in the unsaturated zone when they exceed statewide health standard screening values within specified distances to an occupied structure. NJDEP’s soil remediation standards include inhalation as a direct contact pathway; however, NJDEP’s VI guidance is clear that remediation standards should not be utilized because the standards were not developed for the VI pathway. NJDEP’s guidance states that the use of professional judgment should consider the volatile contaminant concentrations in soil, the proximity of the occupied structures, the biodegradation rate of the compounds, and the ultimate remedy, e.g., excavation, in situ treatment or other approaches.

• PADEP’s guidance states that crawl spaces are not regarded as occupied space. NJDEP considers a crawl space as a potentially occupied space and subject to the indoor air screening levels, even though crawl spaces are not occupied.

• PADEP has developed guidelines for activity and use limitations (AULs) to maintain the attainment of the statewide health standard. At present, there is not a specific deed notice (institutional control) or Remedial Action Permit in NJDEP’s program to address long-term vapor intrusion issues.

• PADEP recognizes the variability in indoor air data and allows the collection of multiple indoor air samples to determine compliance, stating that the “…two sampling events should occur at least 45 days apart for statistical independence.” In discussing this with PADEP, when multiple samples are collected, there should be a statistical evaluation supporting compliance; that is, a trend, or for larger data sets, the 75%/10x test or the 95^th percent upper confidence level of the mean. Despite specific compliance and attainment guidance that allows compliance averaging of soil and groundwater data for comparison with the Soil Remediation Standards and Ground Water Quality Standards, NJDEP’s VI guidance states that “The results cannot be averaged for comparison to the appropriate screening level.” NJDEP’s prohibition extends to both spatial averaging on one or more dates and the averaging of the same sample location on different dates. NJDEP’s prohibition of averaging flies in the face of the scientific evidence, demonstrating the variability of indoor air concentrations. In his seminal study of indoor air levels of trichloroethene, Johnson concluded that the data varied by three orders of magnitude and that decision making based on a single point sample datum subjected the decision maker to the potential for false positives (taking action when the true aggregated exposure does not exceed the screening level) or, worse, a false negative (where the true aggregated exposure exceeds the applicable screening level). As an LSRP, the latter is inappropriate even if the standard of care as specified by NJDEP’s guidance has been met.

To paraphrase W.C. Fields, this is a situation where, all in all, I’d rather be in Pennsylvania. More seriously, I am tempted to substitute the PADEP guidance for NJDEP’s because there are more options to use the current science to assess potential vapor issues. The Licensed Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board’s regulations include a provision from the Site Remediation Reform Act, at N.J.A.C. 7:26I-6.3(c), which states:

(c) When there is no specific technical guidance issued by the Department, or in the judgment of the LSRP the guidance issued by the Department is inappropriate or unnecessary to meet the remediation requirements listed in (a) above, the LSRP may use the following additional guidance provided that the LSRP includes in the appropriate report a written rationale concerning why the technical guidance issued by the Department is inappropriate or unnecessary to meet the remediation requirements listed in (a) above, and justifies the use of the guidance or methods that were utilized:

1. Any relevant guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other states;
2. Any other relevant, applicable, and appropriate methods and practices to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

It can be argued that PADEP’s VI guidance, with the exception of the NJDEP’s screening levels, from which an LSRP cannot vary, meets the standard of care established by the legislature and codified by the licensing board. Granted there are programmatic differences in the two documents that cannot be easily resolved, but for the technical reasons discussed above, the PADEP’s guidance could be utilized successfully in New Jersey. More importantly, it is hoped that the presentation of these technical differences spurs discussion of how to improve the NJDEP’s guidance in light of the advancement of the science.

– Rodger A. Ferguson, Jr., LSRP

PennJersey President Rodger Ferguson is an active member of the LSRPA Steering, Risk Management and Loss Prevention, and Regulatory Outreach Committees, and currently serves as the Treasurer of the organization and on its Board of Trustees. Mr. Ferguson is a key participant in NJDEP stakeholder groups established for the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, Remediation Standards, and guidance documents, including the committees established to evaluate alternative and clean fill material protocols (as stakeholder co-chair) as well as the quality assurance and analytical laboratory methodologies required for the investigation of contaminated sites. Mr. Ferguson earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Analytical Chemistry from Ursinus College in 1983 and has 30+ years’ experience in the environmental field. When Mr. Ferguson isn’t at the helm steering PennJersey, he enjoys spending time with his family, rescuing old houses, coaching lacrosse, and suffering with Philadelphia’s professional sports’ teams.
• Licensed Site Remediation Professional 573794
• UST Closure and Subsurface Evaluator 455706

Rags to Remediation is a content series written by PennJersey founder Richard J. Katz, LSRP, who brings forty-seven years of professional environmental services experience, outlining the rich history of PennJersey Environmental Consulting’s influence in the creation of environmental remediation services as they have come to be known today.

 For the first part of this story—it seems only logical to start at the first part—I began attending Rutgers University in (and it pains me to admit this) 1964.  At this time environmental remediation services were few and far between.

When I went to college as an electrical engineering student, enrolled in the University’s ROTC program, I realized fairly quickly that electrical engineering wasn’t a good fit for me. Meteorology was an in-demand profession for the Air Force at the time, making it a good decision to pursue environmental sciences and a career as a military officer. I worked my way through college (yes, that was something you actually could do back then, don’t get smart about the whole age thing) with multiple jobs including bussing tables, pumping gas and working in Revlon’s mailroom and billing office. By my senior year of undergraduate studies I had saved enough money to finish school and moved on to an interim job as a shipping clerk while waiting to start my military time

In the midst of the Vietnam War and the Russian Space Race, I went on active duty at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. During my time at Wright-Pat as the Technical Monitor for Pollution, I witnessed the passing of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, which led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, among other groups. My duties at Wright-Patterson were actually very much aligned with site remediation, as I was responsible for making safety recommendations on the use of potentially hazardous materials like jet fuel, solvents, construction debris and other general wastes on-base.

This work led to my peripheral involvement with the review and validation of the St. Louis Dispersion Study that sought to develop real-time data on meteorological phenomena. The study assessed if equations correctly predict the transport of atmospheric pollution… incredibly interesting stuff, I know. This also involved assessment of the efficacy of the Bible of Air Pollution predictions at the time, Turner’s Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. This experience was invaluable and correlates in an interesting fashion to compliance guidelines used throughout the DEP today when delineating environmental impacts.

After the completion of my Air Force tour of duty, there was the need for some decompression time, which I used to work as a semi-professional carpenter, following a long-standing passion for woodworking. My son assures me this is an interesting tidbit, although not extraordinarily pertinent. Shortly after my carpentry phase I went to work full-time for the NJDEP’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control. This is where we see a real concern for setting environmental safety standards. At the Bureau, we wrote an initial State Implementation Plan for monitoring and regulating air pollution. During this period, I earned my Master of Science degree in Environmental Sciences and was the on-air Broadcast Meteorologist on the New Jersey Public Television Network.

While doing the weather I was seen by a talent scout from the ABC affiliate network in Austin, Texas, KVUE…

– Richard J. Katz, LSRP

Mr. Katz has a Master of Science in Environmental Science from Rutgers University and over 40 years of experience in the environmental field, acquired in the governmental, consulting and private sectors. Before that, however, he was an Air Force Officer, professional carpenter, and yes, even a weatherman in Austin, Texas. His accomplishments in the environmental field, however, outreach those by hundreds of miles. Under Mr. Katz, PennJersey was a charter member of the LSP Coalition that participated in crafting the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA). Mr. Katz was in the first group to be certified as a Licensed Site Remediation Professional and served on the Executive Committee of the LSRP Association Board of Trustees as the Board Secretary. Mr. Katz is now semi-retired, but is available to consult on matters as needed.

Here at PennJersey, we pride ourselves in the proper preparation, utilization and execution of site remediation to do our job properly. When your company’s senior staff, including three LSRPs and two Professional Geologists, has over fifteen decades of combined experience you’re bound to have learned a few things about site remediation. Experience breeds expertise, but a huge part of experience is getting the right advice. As such, we want to pass on a few of the things we’ve learned: here are the six do’s and don’ts of site remediation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Do identify, assess, and control. It sounds simple, but without a proper site history identifying the source and extent of the potential contamination, it is difficult, if not impossible, to manage the remediation. Some days we are industrial archeologists and forensic chemists, in addition to the more traditional environmental sciences. We need to understand the processes, chemicals used, and the wastes generated from the past to present day to answer the question: how did it get there and where is it going? You don’t know where you are going unless you know how you got there. Only when these questions are answered can we begin to develop a cost-effective and protective remedy. The use of professional judgment, including development of creative solutions, depends on a good conceptual site model.

Do carefully review all documents. We are often quoted saying, “It’s not rocket science, but there are lots and lots of details.” Reviewing the previous remediation documents can be time consuming, but is essential in determining that prior activities were conducted properly. In some cases, the prior No Further Action or Act 2 release of liability may not meet the current standards. They may not even be protective – these are only as good as the work that went into them. Details matter. It’s better to spend the upfront time reviewing documents to protect the client than try to figure it out on the backend. This is especially important for LSRPs who are permitted to act based on their professional opinion, at the risk of their own personal liability.

Do be as transparent as possible. Environmental investigation and remediation is often a complicated and costly endeavor. Sometimes the data are not good, or even discouraging. It is of the utmost importance to stay up-front and clear with the client about necessary costs, and to work with them to make a site compliant. Minimizing our clients’ potential liability and budget is always a top priority. When identification and assessment are done properly, we can all make the most informed decisions possible. By practicing open communication and fact-sharing with our clients, we can work together to meet their needs, while staying compliant and removing unnecessary liability.

Don’t guess or assume. The collection of environmental data is an iterative process. All possible contingencies cannot be anticipated within a reasonable budget. But our experience will point to a likely pathway. We develop a plan based on sound science and regulatory requirements. Then we document the process so that the data are defensible. A sound hypothesis is part of the scientific method, but, even then, the results are not always expected. Sometimes, the best approach is, “We don’t know yet, but here is how we get the answer.” Plans must adapt to the data. We all know what they say about assuming. 

Do use training and experience. At PennJersey, our entire staff stays up to date with remediation best practices by attending continuing education courses and LSRPA stakeholder meetings. The science is ever changing, so our education never stops. Every site we see brings a new and exciting challenge. Through learning from each and every one, we have developed a vault of knowledge from which to pull. It proves invaluable, not only for evaluating impacts, but for advocating on behalf of our clients. The use of professional judgment based on sound science is at the core of New Jersey’s LSRP program and is expected in Pennsylvania’s Act 2 Land Recycling Program as well.

Don’t antagonize DEP, but don’t kowtow to them. Our number one responsibility is our client and their site. Providing the most effective avenue for cost-effective site compliance is in the best interest of all parties. Our team has cultivated relationships with key regulators during their careers. Whether we are dealing with New Jersey’s LSRP program or Pennsylvania’s Act 2 Land Recycling Program, we use the regulator as a valuable resource to get acceptance for creative solutions to our clients’ problems. At the same time, however, we are willing to go to the mat for our clients and argue their cause using professional judgment, data, guidance, and/or regulations support the argument. By maintaining smart, personable relationships, we increase the quality of work produced to get the approvals necessary to get the work done.

At PennJersey, it’s really just that simple. We get the results our clients need, honestly and ethically, the first time. Our mission is to advocate for the client to make their site compliant. More questions about what it is we do or how we might be able to help your business? Give us a call today.

– Rodger A. Ferguson, Jr., LSRP

PennJersey President Rodger Ferguson is an active member of the LSRPA Steering, Risk Management and Loss Prevention, and Regulatory Outreach Committees, and currently serves as the Treasurer of the organization and on its Board of Trustees. Mr. Ferguson is a key participant in NJDEP stakeholder groups established for the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, Remediation Standards, and guidance documents, including the committees established to evaluate alternative and clean fill material protocols (as stakeholder co-chair) as well as the quality assurance and analytical laboratory methodologies required for the investigation of contaminated sites. Mr. Ferguson earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Analytical Chemistry from Ursinus College in 1983 and has 30+ years’ experience in the environmental field. When Mr. Ferguson isn’t at the helm steering PennJersey, he enjoys spending time with his family, rescuing old houses, coaching lacrosse, and suffering with Philadelphia’s professional sports’ teams.
• Licensed Site Remediation Professional 573794
• UST Closure and Subsurface Evaluator 455706