Privatization of Environmental Monitors

Harmful to the environment, harmful to public safety, harmful to business

The Remarkable Tale of One Agency’s Pursuit of Bad Public Policy

Privatization of public service is occurring all across New York State.  Unfortunately, privatization efforts usually occur without public comment or debate, without input from affected parties, and without any cost-benefit analysis or rationale. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) ongoing attempt to privatize public service through deregulation is a striking example of the misguided privatization agenda.  While the proposed policy change will result in a decrease in the number of state employees, there is no evidence that this change will save tax dollars because the operators of hazardous waste sites are required to pay for the cost of the environmental monitors regardless of whether they are state employees or private consultants.  In fact, some operators of hazardous waste sites are concerned that the policy change would raise their costs.

 

Specifically, DEC has proposed eliminating a longstanding policy requiring state monitors at most hazardous waste sites.  Essentially, the policy change would replace professional civil servants employed by DEC with consultants hired by the operators of the hazardous waste sites.  There are many remarkable aspects to this misguided shift in public policy that are not limited to the obvious decrease in environmental oversight nor the diminution of public safety.

 

First, although proposing a significant change in public policy, the DEC did not publicly seek input from any of the interested parties such as the operators of hazardous waste sites, nor did DEC seek input from the people most affected; those living near these sites.  In fact, DEC attempted to bury the notice of this policy change in order to minimize or prevent public comment.  Fortunately, alert environmental advocates became aware of the policy change and urged interested parties to comment.   News outlets such as the New York Times and the Associated Press ran stories on the policy change.

 

Due to the increased exposure generated by these news reports, the public responded with over 600 pages of public comment.  Comments were received from concerned citizens, legislators, advocacy groups, and hazardous waste site operators.  Environmental advocacy groups such as: Environmental Advocates of NY (EANY), Citizen’s Environmental Coalition (CEC), Sierra Club, and the Western New York Erie Canal Keeper quickly recognized the conflict of interest and the threat posed to the environment by giving hazardous waste operating facilities the discretion to hire their own environmental monitors rather than objective civil servants employed by the Department of Environmental Conservation.

 

In a fascinating turn of events, several of the hazardous waste site operators voiced concerns related to the quality, potential conflict of interest, confidentiality issues, and cost.  Specifically, these operators cited their belief that it would be difficult to find companies that are not already doing business with the entity requiring monitoring, thus establishing a conflict of interest.  They cited concerns regarding high turnover of private sector monitors which could have a negative impact on expertise and familiarity with the waste site.  They also expressed concern over private monitors’ access to, and possible disclosure of, confidential information to competitors.  Finally, they cited the high costs associated with for-profit monitors and the belief that it would ultimately cost more money.

 

Below are some of their public comments:

 

“WMNY believes that the existing On-site Monitor program staffed by NYSDEC employees has several benefits.  Primarily, having NYSDEC staff with first hand knowledge of our facilities and operations is valuable in facilitating communication with NYSDEC office staff.  In addition, we often hear that the direct oversight by NYSDEC is important to the community.  We support the specification of an On-site Environmental Monitor for the hazardous waste facilities, and suggest that this be extended to include the solid waste landfills.”  Waste Management of New York (WMNY operates a hazardous waste facility, three solid waste landfills, and a number of transfer stations that are included in the NYSDEC Environmental Monitoring program.)

 

“Based on Ref-Fuel’s experience, the full-time DEC On-site Environmental Monitors at our facilities are knowledgeable about the various aspects of waste-to-energy facilities, and with that knowledge, they are effective and efficient DEC representatives.  In addition, they know DEC regulations, policies, and practices, and as DEC employees they have the State’s resources available to them.  They are able to make informed assessments quickly and accurately, and can answer regulatory questions.  In some cases, they have the authority to make on-site decision on behalf of the DEC. These capabilities hare unlikely to be found in an independent contractor.

 

“Refuel disagrees with the Department’s proposal to now switch to independent environmental monitors (IEM) that are contracted directly by the facility for the following reasons:  1. The quality of monitoring would likely decline.  2.  The change would not save the DEC or the State any money, yet it would substantially increase the cost to the monitored facilities.  American REF-FUEL (owns and operates tow waste-to-energy facilities in New York; one in Niagara Falls and one in Hempstead.  Both facilities are monitored by a full-time DEC employee in accordance with their permits)

 

“…based on a review of existing monitor billings and our members’ experience in contracting for environmental engineering services, we believe that for permanent, year-round on-site monitors, the independent monitor option will often be considerably more expensive for the affected facility.”  NYS Business Council

 

In conclusion, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in pursuing a policy change that is opposed by virtually all interested parties, appears to be more concerned with counting state employees rather than pursuing good public policy and protecting our environment.

Copyright ©2005 STOPprivatization.com is property of the Public Employees Federation. All rights reserved.
Direct questions and comments to the Privatization@pef.org
Privacy Policy

Last Update 5/8/2008

GoPublic Video