13 by taoyni

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 7

									                            2004 INNOVATIONS AWARDS PROGRAM
                                             Application Form
      (INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete and submit this document electronically if possible, e.g. a Word
    document. The application form is available online at our web site, www.csg.org, in the Programs section.
        Please determine the appropriate Program Category from the enclosed Program Categories sheet,
                      and list the category under the Category section below on the right.)

                                                                                             ID #: 04-E-19NJ
                                                                                 Category: _Natural Resources
                                                                                        State: __New Jersey _

1.     Program Name Enforcement Sweep

2.     Administering Agency      New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

3.     Contact Person (Name and Title)          Lisa P. Jackson, Assistant Commissioner
                                                Compliance and Enforcement
4.     Address                                  PO Box 422
                                                Trenton, NJ 08625-0422
5.     Telephone Number                         (609)984-3285

6.     FAX Number                               (609)292-1803

7.     E-mail Address                           Lisa.Jackson@dep.state.nj.us

8.     Web site Address                         http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/

9.     Please provide a two-sentence description of the program.

An Enforcement Sweep is a process whereby compliance rate data 1 is used to target specific geographic
areas, environmental areas, or industrial sectors for compliance inspections. Intra-agency and inter-agency
cooperation facilitates the concentrated multi-media compliance inspections of targeted facilities.

10. How long has this program been operational (month and year)? Note: the program must be between
    9 months and 5 years old on May 1, 2004 to be considered.

                            August 2002

11. Why was the program created? (What problem[s] or issue[s] was it designed to address?)

Environmental Justice2, Worker Protection Standards, Sector Compliance Issues

12. Describe the specific activities and operations of the program in chronological order.

      Determine compliance rate and inspection rate for industrial sector, environmental area, or geographic
       area. Compliance rate is the percentage of facilities operating in compliance out of all facilities in a

1
  The percentage of facilities operating in compliance out of all facilities in a group.
2
  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as: The fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group
should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and
policies.
    group. Inspection rate is the percentage of facilities inspected out of all facilities in a group. Together,
    these indicators help determine if the regulator is providing sufficient coverage of the regulated
    community and makes up the basis/justification for targeting.

   Determine what other agencies, if any, will be involved in the compliance inspections. New Jersey has
    utilized the USEPA, County Health Officers, Local Utilities Authority Officers, Parks & Forestry
    Rangers, and Fish & Wildlife Conservation Officers.

   Generate list of initial facilities for targeting. This was done in New Jersey by utilizing both Dun &
    Bradstreet data to identify potentially regulated facilities and our New Jersey Environmental
    Management System (NJEMS) database of known regulated facilities.

   Refine list of initial facilities by eliminating facilities that are regulated and inspected recently or
    regularly and have no known compliance problems. Any facilities that do not meet all three criteria
    remained on the final facility targeting list.

   Determine which individual programs/agencies will be the lead inspector for which facilities and
    assign inspector(s) to the facilities. Coordinate inspections for facilities that one or more programs had
    interest so as not to conduct multiple inspections at same facility.

   Determine location of command center. The command center is a central location where inspectors
    meet in the morning to receive their assignments and get general announcements. It is also the location
    where inspectors can call in to a program lead to have questions/concerns answered while in the field.
    Inspectors would return to the command center at the end of each day to turn in their inspection sheets
    and relay information as needed. New Jersey has utilized field offices, emergency response centers,
    and county health offices as their command center locations.

   Determine the number of days necessary for the sweep. This is done by dividing the number of
    facilities on the final targeting list by the number of inspectors involved in the sweep times the number
    of inspections each inspector can reasonably complete each day.

   Schedule the Sweep. If the Sweep is an announced initiative then prepare the notification. New Jersey
    has utilized press releases, advisories, mass mailings and trade associations.

   Conduct compliance assistance. New Jersey has utilized training sessions, written materials, on-site
    visits, and web sites.

   Conduct Sweep

   Enter and evaluate the data. New Jersey utilizes Microsoft Access, NJEMS, and Business Objects.

   Document the findings.




See flow charts
                     Other Agencies
   Targeting         Involved
                     (EPA, County, Local,
                     etc.)


                                                              Facility
                                                            Regulated?
Industry Sector                       Search
    Based?                Yes         Database(s)
 (SIC, NAICS)                         for Facilities                               No
                                                           Yes


     No
                                                                Facility                 Final Facility
                                                                              No          Targeting
                                                             recently or
                                        Initial Facility       regularly                     List
 Environmental                          Targeting List       inspected?
     Based?               Yes              (Access
  (watershed,                            Database)
aquifer, sensitive
  habitat, etc.)                                           Yes
                                                                                   Yes


     No                                                      Facility has
                                                               known
                          Yes                                compliance
                                                             problems?

 Geographic
Based? (urban
 area, coastal                                             No
  area, etc.)                                              Remove facility
                                                           from target list
                                                Logistics




     Final            Command
                                           Determine        Schedule Sweep
    Facility        Post Location
                                         Number of Days
   Targeting     (local health office,
                                           of Sweep
      List            emergency
                  response center,
                   field office, etc)

Determine Lead                                                               Yes    Issue advisory,
   Program                                                    Announced
                                                                                       alert, press
                                                               Sweep?
                                                                                      release, etc.

                                                            No
                                                                                      Compliance
    Assign
                                                                                      Assistance
 Inspector(s)                                                Unannounced
                                                                                       Sessions
                                                               Sweep?



                                                                                    Conduct Sweep




                                                                                   Enter and Evaluate
                                                                                          Data


                                                                                   Document Findings
                                                                                    via Report & Web
13. Why is the program a new and creative approach or method?

The agriculture initiative, which was conducted during the prime agricultural season, was the first
concentrated enforcement effort organized by the Department. With the assistance of two bilingual
inspectors from the Pesticide Control Program, the Department’s enforcement team conducted on-site
interviews with farm workers to measure the effectiveness of current regulations and gain first-hand
information about potentially unidentified exposure risks that may be experienced during daily operations.
Inspectors also provided on-site safety instruction to assist farm owners with compliance where necessary.
This type of approach to enforcement was unprecedented in New Jersey.

The Camden effort was a landmark achievement in several respects. First, the department focused on a
community that has long been neglected in terms of health and environmental protection. The Department
was able to build trust with residents who continue to push a federal lawsuit against the Department
alleging that environmental protection was sorely lacking in their community during the previous
Administration. Input from local residents and businesses shaped the Camden initiative. For example, one
facility had drums of hazardous substances in easy reach of workers and the public, but because the facility
had no prior permits the problem might have continued unchecked without the help of community and
business input. The initiative was also an example of smart government. The Department made use of all
enforcement resources, including Rangers from Parks & Forestry and Conservation Officers from Fish &
Wildlife, demonstrating the benefits of cross-training and cross enforcement. No other State has deployed
its parks and wildlife officers in this way, and this innovation allowed us to field 70 enforcers and
performing more than 700 inspections over the course of a week in a concentrated area. By changing the
way of doing business, the department showed commitment to strengthen environmental enforcement in
spite of tough budget times. Finally, by focusing on the entire universe of facilities in a single community,
the Department had a broader picture of the types of violations that may be occurring at similar sites in
communities across the state. For example, the Camden initiative has shown a need to focus more on
scrapyards and auto repair facilities. Unpermitted boilers and heat exchangers are another very real urban
issue. This type of discovery allows the Department to address potential problems at facilities statewide
more pro-actively, and to work cooperatively with the regulated community to highlight problems that may
have been missed in the past before the public is put at risk.

The Paterson initiative was creative in that the Sweep was announced three months prior to the actual
inspections taking place. During that three-month time period the Department reached out to as many
businesses as it could to provide compliance assistance. Six compliance assistance sessions were held and
a web site was developed to help businesses comply with the regulations. The web site had links to
Spanish and Arabic translations as well. Over 90 on-site compliance assistance visits were conducted. A
certificate of inspection was developed and given to facilities that were inspected and no violations were
found. This initiative was about education as much as enforcement of the regulations.

14. What were the program’s start-up costs? (Provide details about specific purchases for this program,
staffing needs and other financial expenditures, as well as existing materials, technology and staff already
in place.)

New:

One-year contract with Dun & Bradstreet (includes access for 15 users to the MarketSpectrum Web
service, 2 days of on-site training, integration of NJDEP records quarterly, monthly update to D&B data,
small business package, NAICS code, and census data) $95,000
Design of access database $7,000

Existing:

NJEMS database of regulates facilities
Geographic Information System mapping
Staff of inspectors, environmental specialists, & data analysts
15. What are the program’s annual operational costs?

Annual operational costs will vary depending upon the number and size of Sweeps conducted during the
year. On average, a large Sweep like the Camden and Paterson Sweeps, cost approximately $150,000 each
to complete. Smaller Sweeps, depending on the extent and duration, cost approximately $50,000 to
$75,000.

16. How is the program funded?

The program is funded through state appropriations.

17. Did this program require the passage of legislation, executive order or regulations? If YES, please
indicate the citation number.

No

18. What equipment, technology and software are used to operate and administer this program?

     Dun & Bradstreet’s MarketSpectrum Web service
     New Jersey Environmental Management System
     Microsoft Access
     Geographic Information System
     Business Objects

19. To the best of your knowledge did this program originate in your state? If YES, please indicate the
innovator’s name, present address, telephone number, and e-mail address.

Yes

Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
7th Floor, East Wing
PO Box 402
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402
(609) 292-2885
Bradley.Campbell@dep.state.nj.us

20. Are you aware of similar programs in other states? If Yes, which ones and how does this program
differ?

No

21. Has the program been fully implemented? If NO, what actions remain to be taken?

Yes

22. Briefly evaluate (pro and con) the program’s effectiveness in addressing the defined problem[s] or
issue[s]. Provide tangible examples.

New Jersey is committed to giving everyone equal protection against environmental threats. The
agricultural Sweep was designed to ensure that the 40,000 farm workers 3 employed in New Jersey were
protected from pesticide exposure risks. Violations were found at 41 of the 58 farms inspected. All

3
  This includes those farm workers that live in migrant camps on farms and “day-haulers” who commute
from cities daily and are transported on buses by crew leaders.
violations were on small and medium size farms employing 50 or fewer employees. This information
confirmed that they are a target audience for future compliance assistance. Follow-up inspections found
that the farms with the most significant violations corrected 100 percent of the violations that had
previously been cited. The initiatives in Camden and Paterson were designed to ensure that the residents in
these urban communities were not being subject to illegal activities or non-compliance that could affect
their health and safety. In both cities, the majority of businesses were in compliance, however numerous
major violations were found. Residents of Camden were pleased with the Department but New Jersey’s
business leaders reacted negatively and with fear. In contrast, by announcing the Paterson Sweep and
providing numerous compliance assistance opportunities, business leaders and political leaders were
thrilled with the Department. The press conference after the Paterson Sweep was hailed as a “love-in” by
the Bergen Record newspaper. The difficulty is maintaining a balance between enforcer and educator.
Sweeps are labor intensive and costly but when weighed against the pollution prevented, the compliance
achieved and the compliance assistance needs identified they are well worth the effort.

23. How has the program grown and/or changed since its inception?

Each Sweep has built upon the lessons learned from prior Sweeps. The first Sweep was an unannounced 3-
day inspection of 58 agricultural sites and involved bilingual inspectors. The second Sweep was an
unannounced weeklong inspection of over 700 facilities in the urban city of Camden, New Jersey. This
Sweep involved over 70 inspectors from the Department, EPA, and County Health Officers. The third
Sweep was an announced 2-week inspection of over 1,000 facilities in the urban city of Paterson, New
Jersey. Six compliance assistance sessions were conducted prior to the Sweep to help businesses comply
with the regulations. This Sweep involved over 120 inspectors from the Department, EPA, County Health
Officers, and local sewerage authority. The next planned Sweep, to be conducted jointly by the
Department and the New Jersey Department of Health, is an announced 2-week inspection of over 1,700
Regulated Medical Waste Generators within the Barnegat Bay Watershed. Three compliance assistance
sessions are planned to help the regulated community comply with the regulations.

24. What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this
program?

   The extent of enforceable regulations

   Limited inspector resources

   Limited data available to make targeting decisions

   Internal opposition to new approach to enforcement

								
To top