response to comments: wis. admin. code ch. nr 712 ... · when nr 718.12 exempt contaminated soil is...

1

Comment Response Summary to DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program Guidance - RR-081 - Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 Qualifications and Certifications DNR created publication RR–081 to summarize in one document the requirements for environmental professionals conducting environmental response work, as specified in Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712. This rule was last updated in 2013. Most of the comments received were about the rule language itself and not DNR’s summation of the administrative rule in the fact sheet. Guidance documents cannot make changes to administrative rules, and therefore DNR does not address specific requests to rule changes in this response. The fact sheet remains substantially as proposed, as it reflects the current version of Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712. Based on the public comment period held between March 5, 2018 and April 4, 2018 Prepared by Darsi Foss History of NR 712 - DNR’s Administrative Code Since the early 1990s, the Remediation and Redevelopment program has solicited public input on issues related to who may supervise certain NR 700 response actions and certify submittals for those actions. The program has discussed these issues with members of the NR 700 Focus Group, the Brownfields Study Group and as part of various rule making processes. The following timeline summarizes the history of the development of NR 712 and the definition of hydrogeologist in Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712. 1994 Wisconsin began “registering” professional geologists with the enactment of 1993 Wisconsin Act 463 on April 28, 1994. The

act waived the requirement to pass an exam for anyone who applied for registration within a defined 12-month period and met the other registration requirements. Following Act 463, professional geologists were regulated under Wis. Stat. ch. 443.

1994 Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 was promulgated in May 1994. Implementation was delayed until May 1995 to allow affected

consultants an opportunity to comply with the requirements of the new code. The 1994 definition of hydrogeologist in Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 was the same as the definition in Wis. Admin. Code § NR 600.03(98).

1995 Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 went into effect.

2

1997 The 97-99 state budget bill that became Wisconsin Act 27 included a provision to create a certified remediation professionals

program that would have required persons who perform certain cleanup activities to be certified by DNR. This provision was vetoed in favor of implementing 1994 Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 and the creation of Wis. Stat. ch. 470.

1998 1997 Wisconsin Act 300 was enacted on June 16, 1998, creating Wis. Stat. ch. 470 relating to the regulation of professional

geologists, hydrologists and soil scientists, creating an examining board, and granted rule-making authority. The regulation of professional geologists was moved from Wis. Stat. ch. 443 to Wis. Stat. ch. 470. Under Wis. Stat. ch. 443, professional geologists were registered; under Wis. Stat. ch. 470 professional geologists are licensed.

2000 Wis. Admin. Code GHSS §§ 1-5 (the rules for Wis. Stat. ch. 470) went into effect, specifying requirements for licensure of

professional geologists, professional hydrologists and professional soil scientists. 2008 From November 2008 to July 2010, public input on proposed changes to Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 700-754 was obtained

during 10 meetings of the NR 700 Focus Group and Brownfields Study Group. Comments were received from a diverse group of parties. No comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 (which included the (then) new requirement to be licensed under Wis. Admin. GHSS §§ 1-5).

2013 In May 2013, 5 public, administrative rule hearings were held to obtain comments on proposed revisions to Wis. Admin.

Code chs. NR 700-754. The hearings were held in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Rhinelander and Eau Claire. A total of 20 people attended. Written comments were accepted until May 31, 2012. No public comments were received regarding the proposed changes to Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712.

2013 In November 2013, Wis. Admin. Code § NR 712.03(1) was amended, and the current definition of hydrogeologist went into

effect. Since this date, the code defines hydrogeologist to include DSPS licensure as a geologist or hydrologist, in addition to the long-standing requirements for education and experience specific to hydrology and geology.

In the early 1990s, when DNR started the development of the NR 700 administrative rule, it had a choice to make. It could either develop a command and control rule where a responsible party could not proceed with the next phase of its cleanup without DNR

3

review and approval. Or, the DNR could establish a performance-based, self-implementing rule which relied on the private sector, most notably through qualified environmental consultants, to move sites through the NR 700 cleanups pipeline. DNR, based on strong external support, elected to develop a self-implementing rule. Theoretically, a consultant can navigate a site through the entire NR 700 process without requesting a review to determine if DNR agrees that the site investigation is complete, or that the proposed remedial action is sufficient. In addition, it was intended that the NR 700 rule series would apply to thousands of sites requiring response actions, whether they are complex RCRA hazardous waste sites or simpler leaking tank sites. Thus, having clear consultant qualification and certification standards that applied to all types of cleanups in a self-implementing program was a key element of the development of Wisconsin’s Remediation and Redevelopment rules. This was particularly important given the large number of contaminated sites in Wisconsin in relation to the limited staff resources available at the DNR. Again, the intent was to have responsible parties rely on qualified consultants to move them through the cleanup process. In 1997, the legislature proposed a licensed site professional program in Wisconsin. After discussions with the consulting community and the executive branch, this proposal was vetoed. In particular, it was vetoed by the governor because the consulting community agreed that NR 712 would be the standard for environmental professionals conducting response actions in Wisconsin. Further, it was agreed by the parties that the legislature would adopt a national licensure standard for professional geologists, that would help clarify for NR 712 who could supervise work and certify submittals. The legislature passed such legislation, as 1997 Wisconsin Act 300 which created Wis. Stat. ch. 470, and which ultimately was adopted into NR 712. It should be noted for those professionals that do not currently hold a professional geologist license that the state began registering professional geologists with the enactment of 1993 Wisconsin Act 463 on April 28, 1994. The act waived the requirement to pass an exam for anyone who applied for registration within a defined 12-month period and met the other registration requirements. Some consultants elected not to do so. It should also be noted that not all consultants that do work under NR 700-754 need these credentials – only those that supervise work and sign submittals. The Department of Safety and Professional Services does offer the exam to become a licensed professional geologist twice yearly.

4

December 2018 – Response to Comments on DNR fact sheet explaining NR 712 Thank you to the individuals that provided feedback on the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) proposed guidance titled “Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 Qualifications and Certifications”. The following table summarizes the comments received and the response to comments. Verbatim comments are attached following the comment response summary.

Summary of Comment Name/Organization Response to Comment DNR should not require someone who qualifies as a hydrogeologist to certify a Phase I, this level of expertise is excessive. ASTM standards for Phase I and II require an “environmental professional” and NR 700 does not include requirements for certification of Phase I and II. There is no requirement that Phase I or II environmental assessment be submitted to the DNR.

Mary Jo Pankratz, Martenson & Eisele, Inc. Stacy Jepson, Martenson & Eisele, Inc. Beth Erdmann, General Engineering Company (GEC) Trenton J. Ott, Friess Environmental Consultant Raghu B. Singh, Ph. D OM Enterprises

NR 712 does not apply to Phase I & II reports/actions, unless, as specified in Wis. Admin. Code §. NR 712.07(1):

Work is done or will be used to satisfy: NR 708.11(4) interim action that triggers NR 724 NR 708.13 – free product removal NR 716 to 754

Work is done to satisfy the requirements to obtain a certificate of completion under the VPLE program as defined in Wis. Stat. § 292.15 and NR 750; NR 750 requires the submittal of a Phase I and II environmental assessment to participate in the VPLE program.

Thus, if the RP/consultant submits Phase II groundwater sampling results to fully or partially satisfy the requirements of Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 716, those samples should have been taken under the supervision of a “hydrogeologist”. The footnote in the guidance has been rewritten to clarify under which situations a Phase I or II report must be prepared under the supervision of a professional engineer and/or hydrogeologist. DNR received no public comments on this 2013 rule change.

5

DNR should allow for environmental professionals (PSS or PG) who may not have a PE or hydrogeologist certification to sign off on investigations or closure requests with groundwater contamination. Requiring the PE or hydrogeologist signature on reports costs extra money and that person may not have familiarity with the project.

Rick Friess, Friess Environmental Consulting Trenton J. Ott, Friess Environmental Consultant Anthony Miller, Gannett Flemming, Inc.

This fact sheet only summarizes what is currently required under NR 712. Guidance documents cannot modify or negate existing state laws. Please refer to the history and purpose of NR 712 section (above) for more information on the reasons for certain credentials. Since 1995, state law has required that professionals with specific qualifications supervise and certify that environmental response action work conducted under specific chapter or sections of Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 700 – 754 meet the necessary qualifications in NR 712. Existing projects should already be managed in compliance with NR 712 by professionals that meet these requirements. Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services offers the professional geologist exam twice-yearly. See the response to the question about PECFA below.

NR 718.12: The proposed clarification clearly provides no authority for a State of Wisconsin licensed and registered Professional Geologist to supervise or certify soil management plans under NR 718.12. These are tasks well within a Professional Geologist’s ability and

Christopher J. Rogers, P.G., OMNNI Associates

It is the DNR’s understanding that the commenter is referring to the general introductory section of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 712.07(1) that provides an overview of what credentials are required to supervise work and certify certain regulatory submittals under the NR 700 rule series. The DNR would like to point out that sections NR 712.07(2) through (5) further specify the exact qualifications that are required for specific NR 700 submittals, beyond the general reference that the commenter points out. DNR admits that this is a complicated topic that requires an overall understanding of the relationship between Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 708, 712, 718, 722 and 724.

6

based on my interpretation, the language in NR 712.07(1) clearly states that a Professional Geologist (Hydrogeologist) has the authority to conduct or supervise work specifically within NR 718.12.

Actions involving the management of contaminated soil under NR 700 are considered either an immediate, interim or remedial action. NR 718.12 provides an option to manage contaminated soil at a location other than a licensed, operating solid waste facility. When an NR 708.11(4) interim action or NR 722/724 remedial action is being conducted in accordance with an NR 718.12(1) and (2) exemption, the provisions of NR 712.07(3) or (4) apply. When NR 718.12 exempt contaminated soil is excavated as a result of an interim or remedial action involving groundwater (e.g., management of contaminated soil from the installation of a groundwater extraction system), both a professional engineer and hydrogeologist must supervise and certify the appropriate submittals under NR 708.11(4), NR 718.12(1) and (2), NR 722 and 724. Where NR 718.12 exempt contaminated soil is being managed as a result of an interim or remedial action that addresses media other than groundwater (e.g., soil engineering control with no groundwater assessment), then a professional engineer must supervise and certify the submittals under NR 708.11(4), NR 718.12(1) and (2), NR 722 and 724. NR 712.07(4) is the only provision that provides exclusive authority for a hydrogeologist to supervise and prepare a submittal – this provision is limited to a NR 716 site

7

investigation submittal involving the assessment of groundwater. NR 712.07(5) is the only provision that allows for either a professional engineer, hydrogeologist or scientist to supervise or prepare NR 716 and 720 submittals involving media other than groundwater.

Remedial projects that involve groundwater should not always need a PE signature because most groundwater remediation, like injection, doesn’t involve much engineering. A hydrogeologist signature should be sufficient in most cases. Mechanical systems designed to treat groundwater should require both hydrogeologist and PE signature. Requiring a PE on all soil related submittals is overkill and not necessary. A PG would have training to oversee most soil cleanups.

Wayne Fassbender, PG, EnviroForensics Kendrick Ebbott, PG, Fehr Grahm Ron Anderson, METCO Beth Erdmann, General Engineering Company (GEC) Lynn Bradley, General Engineering Company (GEC)

In developing NR 712, the DNR had to make decisions, with public input, on how to determine what qualifications, supervision and signatures would be required at the thousands of cleanups occurring in the state. Thus, it had to develop a rule that fit most of the situations most of the time – whether the site was a federal LUST, TSCA, Superfund or a state brownfield site. The rule, as written, does not address exceptions (e.g., groundwater injection versus pump and treat remedies) to sites that may otherwise trigger having to develop a remedial action options report or being subject to the design/implementation/maintenance standards in ch. NR 724 – both of which trigger the need for a P.E. and potentially a hydrogeologist. As written, NR 712 does not provide an exemption from these requirements.

8

Requiring PE for all projects should not be applied across the board, for example if pavement is involved. If DNR strictly enforces this guidance, it will not have benefit and will complicate reviews and cost more money.

Kendrick Ebbott, PG, Fehr Grahm

This rule went into effect in 1995 with a one-year delay, so consulting firms could either find staff with the appropriate credentials, or have those staff acquire those credentials. The rule was updated 5 years ago, affording consultants and firms with time to again acquire the appropriate credentials. Not all consultants that do environmental work need these credentials – only those that supervise work and sign submittals. NR 712 is in intended to ensure that investigations and cleanups under a self-implementing program are conducted by private-sector professionals with training and experience that is obtained and confirmed in a consistent manner. See history section for more background on this topic.

Consultant qualifications are key to relying on a “self-implementing” rule, where in “members of the public rely on the consultant’s knowledge.” DNR should expand guidance to call attention

Mark Thimke, Foley and Lardner

DNR agrees that in developing a self-implementing program, the importance of having NR 712 credentials and certifications became much more crucial. Responsible parties are expected to rely on their consultants to move them through the NR 700 process with minimal DNR involvement. Obtaining case closure from DNR is not even a requirement under NR 700 – thus, putting more importance on having qualifications in a rule that specifies the minimum credentials for those

9

to qualifications AND certification.

supervising work and signing submittals. DNR did not develop a command and control system where consultants had to wait at every stage for DNR review and approval.

Simple excavations should not require a PE signature

Wayne Fassbender, Enviroforensics

Actions taken under NR 708 do not require the signature of an NR 712 professional – if the volume of soil is less than 100 cubic yards. Larger excavations meet the definition of a remedial action (NR 724) to which the certification requirements of NR 712 apply.

If the DNR is going to require that both a PE and Hydrogeologist/Geologist be both involved in subsurface investigation projects where both were not required before, then they will clearly need to increase what they reimburse for work on PECFA projects as two professionals are clearly more costly than just one. If a PE is now going to be needed on existing projects, PECFA would need to pay for cost for the PE to review the file.

Ron Anderson, METCO For consultants and agents performing PECFA work, please note that the Senior Professional rate (currently $109.67) is generally expected to cover time for a Professional Engineer to review necessary documentation when required by Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712. If consultants or PECFA agents feel the Principal rate is warranted for extremely complex sites instead of the Senior Professional rate, the RR Program asks that a justification be provided to the DNR project manager at the time of the cost request.

If you require both a PE and a Hydrogeologist /

Ron Anderson, METCO Yes, this is consistent with NR 712.

10

Geologist to supervise/sign a Closure Package, then they both need to be involved with the supervision/decisions of the entire project For non PECFA projects, consultant would need to modify contracts to add cost to bring in a PE. DNR should “grandfather-in” existing subsurface investigations underway with current procedures.

Ron Anderson, METCO The rules governing the requirement to have a PE involved in an NR 700 action have been in effect since 1995.

NR712 hydrogeologist definition in 712: not all hydrogeologists were notified in 2012.

Beth Erdmann, General Engineering Company (GEC) Lynn Bradley, General Engineering Company (GEC)

Please refer to the history and purpose section of the response to comments. Extensive engagement with external stakeholders, including the NR 700 advisory group which is mostly comprised of consultants, and associations was made, prior to holding 5 public hearings and a public comment period. No comments were received regarding NR 712; however, other comments were received from the consulting community on other portions of the rule.

Request that DNR adopt the definition of “environmental professional” in 40 CFR Part 310.

Raghu B. Singh, Ph. D OM Enterprises

This fact sheet only summarizes what is currently specified under NR 712. Guidance documents cannot modify or negate existing state laws.

Why does various chapters and sections of NR 700


NR 712 does not limit the environmental professionals that may work on a response action site; it merely defines who is

11

mention many types of environmental professionals, not just P.E.s, hydrogeologists and environmental scientists?

required to supervise certain types of work performed by those professionals and who may provide to DNR certifications on specific NR 700 submittals.

Request DNR add geologist to definitions.



Why can’t a scientist or a hydrogeologist certify and/or supervise non-groundwater work?


NR 712.07(3) states that submittals prepared to satisfy the requirements of ch. NR 722 or 724 or s. NR 708.11 (4) for response actions that address any media other than groundwater shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of, a professional engineer.

NR 712.09(3)(c) is missing the word “certified” prior to the word “scientist”.


“Scientist” is defined in NR 712.03(3).

The proposed rule is superfluous with the current Geologist program and undermines the legitimacy of the current Professional Geologist registration.

James Wedekind P.G. TRC Solutions


1

Prager, Michael A - DNR

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:43 AMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRCc: Foss, Darsi J - DNR; Fassbender, Judy L - DNRSubject: NR 712

Christine, Thanks you for the guidance and the upcoming discussion on March 12. I agree with the guidance pointing out the qualification requirements to make sure that appropriate professionals are doing the work. I would suggest though that there may be a need to review NR 712 in the context of the degrees and professional training from universities. How has the university approach changed, if at all, in training environmental professionals. This may be a good topic for the Advisory Group to look at to make sure that the university training approach matches the code. But beyond the professional certifications, I believe it is important to stress that it is not only the qualification that is being certified but that the work and the report being submitted is certified as being: “prepared in compliance with all applicable requirements in chs. NR 700 to 726, Wis. Adm. Code." The words here mean that the information developed through the technical work and the technical approach expressed in the document is “in compliance” with the NR 700 code. Knowledge of the code and understanding what is and what is not acceptable is key. Members of the public rely on the consultant’s knowledge of what is required by law and if the technical person certifies but the report is lacking the person who paid for it did not receive what was sought. And the Department then needs to expend its limited resource to try to fix the problem, which in turn delays clean up and takes up valuable time and attention from other projects that do meet the certification requirements. These certification requirements are a key part of the self-implementing approach to NR 700. The approach of NR 700 is not to require command control by the Department but to allow sites to be quickly cleaned up under the code directed by professionals who will certify that this is in fact what happened. Thanks again for addressing this important topic. My comments are directed at expanding the guidance to call attention to not only the professional qualifications but the certification. Both are important to the integrity of the NR 700 approach. Mark The preceding email message may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.

1


From: Mary Jo Pankratz <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:37 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 Qualifications and Certifications (RR-081) comment

Good afternoon Christine, I would like to comment on the above qualifications/certifications. As an ASTM E1527-defined environmental professional (Individuals who hold a Baccalaureate or higher degree in engineering or science from an accredited institution of higher education and have equivalent of five years full-time relevant experience qualify as an environmental professional under the final rule) with over 20 years of experience in groundwater but no formal coursework, I would like to point out that under the proposed rule, many ‘Environmental Professionals’ would not be able to certify a Phase I report if groundwater was involved because they are not technically Hydrogeologists. I believe the level of hydrogeology expertise proposed in the new rule is excessive at the Phase I level, though certainly appropriate at the Phase II level of investigation. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Mary Jo Pankratz Mary Jo Pankratz Environmental Specialist/Geologist [email protected]

Visit us at www.martenson-eisele.com

And Like us on and 1377 Midway Road, Menasha, WI 54952 Phone 920-731-0381 Fax 920-733-8578 Cell 920-470-2065 The information contained in this email is for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may be privileged or confidential. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.

1


From: Rick Frieseke <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 11:35 AMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNR

Christine I am writing to provided public opinion regarding the requirements that only a professional hydrogeologist (PG)is qualified to provide recommendations for any report including site investigations or site closure on a site which has groundwater impacts or that a site with soil and groundwater impacts would need both a PE and PG signature. Surely years of experience and/or equivalent education should be taken into consideration as to qualifications. There should be a mechanism where a small firm with a PE or hydrogeoligst on staff can self certify or obtain a certification based on the experience (in my case 30 years)of conducting soil and groundwater investigations or education (in my case BS and MS in environmental, geotechnical and water/wastewater engineering). I would welcome the opportunity to discuss further Rick Frieseke Friess Environmental Consulting, Inc. 6635 North Sidney Place Milwaukee, WI 53209 414 228-9815 work ph 414 228-9816 work fax 414 731-9875 cell

1


From: Miller, Anthony W. <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:25 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: Request to Add Professional Soil Scientists & Geologists to List NR 712 Certifications for

Signing Documents

Christine - I’ve had a professional soil scientist license since 2000 and have been conducting remedial investigations for my company and their clients for the past 26 years throughout the US and Wisconsin. This has included conducting groundwater investigations to determine the nature, extent, and degree of contamination at sites with multiple releases, designing and installing groundwater recovery wells and air sparge systems, conducting injections to treat contaminant plumes in-situ, preparing reports providing data to differentiate two or more commingled contaminant plumes, and preparing closure request reports documenting the final site conditions and extent of contamination at the time of closure. As has been the case with most of the projects I’ve worked on, I am the person with our firm that typically has the most extensive knowledge of the site history and the status of the soil and groundwater remediation activities. As such, I tend to be the one that prepares or reviews all reports and work plans for our sites in Wisconsin. However, because I am not a licensed engineer or hydrogeologist, I cannot sign off on the report but must use our licensed engineer who may have little or no first-hand knowledge of the site conditions to review and sign off on the report. This seems like a time-consuming and needless expense, and quite frankly, insulting to me and my colleagues with a professional soil scientist licenses who have been able to assess and remediate groundwater contamination before the requirement to have a professional engineer or hydrogeologist was added. My belief is that the WDNR project manager and closure committee should be able assess whether the data submitted with a report, work plan, or closure request meets the requirements of investigation and remediation as part of its closure review. Having someone with an engineering or hydrogeologist license sign off on the report does not necessarily ensure it is any more accurate or complete than if a professional soil scientist with years of experience conducting the actual hydrogeological investigation for the site signed the report. I know you are somewhat bound by the NR. 700 code, but is it possible to amend the code and allow someone with a PSS or PG license to sign off on reports and work plans involving groundwater investigations? If not, what is the process to amend the code? Should I go through my state representative? Let me know. Thanks, Anthony W. Miller, P.S.S. | Project Manager | Senior Environmental Scientist Gannett Fleming, Inc. | 8025 Excelsior Dr., Madison, WI 53717-1900 t 608.836.1500, ext 6716 | c 608.354.7730 | f 608.831.3337 | [email protected] Excellence Delivered As Promised Gannett Fleming is ISO 9001:2008 Certified. www.gannettfleming.com

PRINTING SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT: Gannett Fleming is committed to conserving natural resources and minimizing adverse environmental impacts in projects. Accordingly, project documentation will be provided in electronic format only unless clients specifically request hard copies. Visit our website to read more about our sustainability commitment.

2

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited.

1


From: Stacy E. Jepson <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:00 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: RE: Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 Qualifications and Certifications (RR-081) comment

Good Afternoon Christine, I would like to comment on the above qualifications/certifications listed in the NR 712 Qualification and Certifications. I have 14 years of experience completing Phase I ESA work and believe that requiring a hydrogeology requirement for a Phase I ESA for either with GW or without GW is excessive as a Phase I ESA is a screening tool. I believe the ASTM E1527-defined environmental professional (Individuals who hold a Baccalaureate or higher degree in engineering or science from an accredited institution of higher education and have equivalent of five years full-time relevant experience qualify as an environmental professional under the final rule) is adequate for the needed qualifications to complete a Phase I ESA. The new distinction would disqualify many ‘Environmental Professionals’ from being able to certify a Phase I report if groundwater was involved because they are not licensed Hydrogeologists. I believe the level of hydrogeology expertise proposed in the new rule is excessive at the Phase I level, though certainly appropriate at the Phase II level of investigation. Please consider this in your final review of the proposed changes, Best Regards, Stacy Stacy E. Jepson, C.S.T. Environmental Project Manager WDNR Assured Wetland Delineator [email protected]

Visit us at www.martenson-eisele.com

And Like us on and

1377 Midway Road, Menasha, WI 54952 Phone 920-731-0381 Fax 920-733-8578 The information contained in this email is for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may be privileged or confidential. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.

1


From: Ron Anderson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:21 AMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: Questions/Comments for NR712 Qualifications and Certifications

Good morning…Christine Here are my comments/questions concerning NR712. 1) Concerning "Who must supervise and certify the submittal" table, I am strongly suggesting that it is modified to where a Hydrogeologist be allowed to alone supervise/certify a Closure Request for a subsurface investigation project (both with or without groundwater) assuming there is no remedial system associated with the project. My reasoning is that if a Hydrogeologist (who is also a Geologist) is managing a subsurface investigation project that involves soil borings, and/or monitoring wells, and/or groundwater monitoring, and/or excavations, there is no logical reason to also include a PE as two qualified professionals are not needed to supervise such a project and subsequently sign the closure report. If the state does want to also include a PE along with the Hydrogeologist/Geologist on subsurface investigation projects, I would like to see some reasoning on why two professionals are needed on such simple projects and what engineering principals/practices are so vital to such a project that they must also be included despite a Hydrogeologist/Geologist already supervising the project. Per my conversations with an experienced PE in this industry, they would also agree that there is nothing more they could add to such subsurface investigation projects (with or without gw) that would be above and beyond what a Hydrogeologist/Geologist is already able to do. 2) If the DNR is going to require that both a PE and Hydrogeologist/Geologist be both involved in subsurface investigation projects where both were not required before, then they will clearly need to increase what they reimburse for work on pecfa projects as two professionals are clearly more costly than just one. AND…If you require both a PE and a Hydrogeologist/Geologist to supervise/sign a Closure Package, then they both need to be involved with the supervision/decisions of the entire project. 3) There are currently hundreds of subsurface investigation projects (both pecfa and non-pecfa) that are being solely managed by a Hydrogeologist/Geologist to this point. If the state is now going to require that a PE also supervise/sign the Closure Requests, then pecfa would need to reimburse for the cost needed for them to review the entire file and become familiar with the projects history so that they would then be able to sign/stamp the subsequent Closure Package (with or without gw) with confidence. For non-pecfa projects in the same situation, we would now need to approach our clients about modifying the existing contracts (some of which were won via competitive bidding) which would definitely cause some hardships. If the state will not modify "Who must supervise and certify the submittal" table to where a Hydrogeologist/Geologist can solely supervise and sign a Closure Request (with and without gw), then would it be possible to "grandfather-in" existing subsurface investigation projects that are well underway to the current accepted procedures? Ron Anderson METCO - Senior Hydrogeologist [email protected] / 608.781.8879

2

709 Gillette Street - Suite 3, La Crosse WI 54603 www.metcohq.com

1


From: Beth Erdman <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 12:25 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRCc: Brian Youngwirth; Lynn BradleySubject: Public Comments for Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR712 Qualifications and Certifications

(RR-081)

Good Afternoon Christine, General Engineering Company (GEC) is pleased to provide comments with regard to the above, specifically regarding the table included in the guidance identifying “ Who must supervise and certify the submittal?” With regard to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) signature requirements in the table:

Phase I and Phase II ESAs conducted utilizing ASTM standards require an “Environmental Professional” complete the assessments. There is no hydrogeologist/PE signature requirement associated with general ASTM rules for Phase I or II ESAs.

Phase I ESAs are performed solely on the basis of historic research, a property visit and analyze the historic data, including all appropriate inquiry, associated with a property to make a determination whether a recognized environmental condition exists. No subsurface investigation is required to be performed as part of a Phase I ESA, as such, the presence of soil or groundwater contamination is not known at the time of the assessment. Therefore, a signature from a hydrogeologist, PE or soil scientist on the basis of contaminated soil or groundwater appears unnecessary.

According to ASTM standards, Phase II ESAs typically assess (soil and/or groundwater) for the presence or absence of contamination. The work performed typically does not include groundwater flow, hydraulic conductivity , groundwater gradient determinations nor does it determine the extent of soil or groundwater contamination which are performed as part of a site investigation, if necessary.

NR700 does not include requirements for Hydrogeologist/PE or Scientist certification associated with the Phase I or Phase II ESAs. It is important to note, the addition of a PE or PG signature requirement adds significant undue costs for property owners/purchasers looking to identify future needs for properties when initial ESAs, by ASTM standards, can utilize the required “environmental professional” to make the general initial assessments.

Additionally, there is no requirement for Phase I and Phase II ESA reports to be submitted to the DNR. Based on the proposed guidance, the PE or Hydrogeologist would have to sign the Phase I or Phase II reports only if it was provided as documentation, should the site require a response by the WDNR. However, based on the above, ASTM and NR700 requirements, it appears the Phase I and Phase II reports submitted as documentation should be evaluated based on the data provided and ASTM signature requirements.

With regard to the Professional Engineer Signatures for submittals that involve pavement:

Engineer signatures are certainly appropriate when engineered systems/controls are in place, however, this should not be an across the board requirement as implied in the table. An example would be in cases where pavement (concrete/asphalt) is involved. To require engineer supervision and certification for a paved surface to be removed/replaced/repaired adds significant undue costs for property owners/responsible parties when in 99% of the cases an asphalt/concrete company addresses the needs.

o Examples associated with the above could be removal/replacement/repair following soil boring/monitoring well installation/removal, or simply modification of continuing obligations as the result of repaving or tank system replacement when impacted soil is not removed or moved around the property.

2

With regard to hydrogeologist/PE certification for all submittals listed in the table:

Requiring PE/Hydrogeologist signature should be at the discretion of the professional managing the site for the “self implementing” rule. NR700 does not require a Hydrogeologist or PE certification of all reports listed in the table. As an example, the simple submittal of soil or groundwater analytical results collected by field staff, again adds significant additional costs for the property owners/responsible party if a PE/Hydrogeologist must certify. Full analysis and interpretation is provided at time the Site Investigation Report (SIR)/Closure submittal, which requires PE/Hydrogeologist certifications.

Based on the above, PE/Hydrogeologist/Scientist involvement is necessary to complete the work required in NR700, however to require the certification for all submittals in the table, even though many are quite simple, do not require and often do not warrant PE/Hydrogeologist certification; adds exponential undue costs for owners/responsible parties, when there are already controls in place where the professional certifications are required (i.e. SIR, Closure). In addition to the above comments regarding the proposed signature requirements, GEC would also like to comment on the nature of these proposed changes as they pertain to the rule changes made to the NR712 hydrogeologist definition of 2013. It is understood that changes to the hydrogeologist definition were previously denied by the legislature and were amended within the WDNR code. The WDNR often makes it clear that they received limited comments during the comment period of for the hydrogeologist code changes during 2012. However, it should be noted that there is not a “list” of hydrogeologists working in the State of Wisconsin and there is no way to know who was actually informed of proposed changes at that time. In addition, environmental consultants at that time were informed by WDNR staff that a professional (engineer, hydrogeologist, P.G.) could sign site investigation reports and closure reports. There were no required criteria for specific certifications to sign specific documents on the basis of the contamination detected (i.e. soil and/or groundwater), which can be seen on the current WDNR closure form and the guidance table discussed above, which requires a signature by a P.E. or P.G or Hydrogeologist or Scientist. As a result, engineering companies employing hydrogeologists at the time of the 2012/2013 rule change would have no reason to require additional credentials, such as a P.G., since there was no requirement for one. Since the original rule change to the definition of a hydrogeologist in 2013, the WDNR has already implemented a change to the certifications necessary for signing reports and now is attempting to implement other changes that would require additional certification requirements that would go against the original changes and understanding of the rule in 2013. It makes sense that people currently graduating from college and seeking employment in this field should know the requirements/credentials for completing this type of work in the future. However, it seems unjust to have stripped those of the credentials who graduated and qualified under the definition of a hydrogeologist prior to the 2013 rule change and may have worked in this field for 20+ years. It also seems unjust to continue to attempt to amend the report signing certifications necessary since many were not aware of the original rule change or what a hydrogeologist (prior to 2013) had a chance to comment on. GEC hopes you will take these comments into consideration when finalizing the guidance. If you have questions or would like to discuss, do not hesitate at any time. Thank you so much, GEC Staff Beth A. Erdman

1


From: Lynn Bradley <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 12:23 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRCc: Brian Youngwirth; Beth ErdmanSubject: Public Comments for Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR712 Qualifications and Certifications

(RR-081)

Good Afternoon Christine, General Engineering Company (GEC) is pleased to provide comments with regard to the above, specifically regarding the table included in the guidance identifying “ Who must supervise and certify the submittal?” With regard to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) signature requirements in the table:

Phase I and Phase II ESAs conducted utilizing ASTM standards require an “Environmental Professional” complete the assessments. There is no hydrogeologist/PE signature requirement associated with general ASTM rules for Phase I or II ESAs.

Phase I ESAs are performed solely on the basis of historic research, a property visit and analyze the historic data, including all appropriate inquiry, associated with a property to make a determination whether a recognized environmental condition exists. No subsurface investigation is required to be performed as part of a Phase I ESA, as such, the presence of soil or groundwater contamination is not known at the time of the assessment. Therefore, a signature from a hydrogeologist, PE or soil scientist on the basis of contaminated soil or groundwater appears unnecessary.

According to ASTM standards, Phase II ESAs typically assess (soil and/or groundwater) for the presence or absence of contamination. The work performed typically does not include groundwater flow, hydraulic conductivity , groundwater gradient determinations nor does it determine the extent of soil or groundwater contamination which are performed as part of a site investigation, if necessary.

NR700 does not include requirements for Hydrogeologist/PE or Scientist certification associated with the Phase I or Phase II ESAs. It is important to note, the addition of a PE or PG signature requirement adds significant undue costs for property owners/purchasers looking to identify future needs for properties when initial ESAs, by ASTM standards, can utilize the required “environmental professional” to make the general initial assessments.

Additionally, there is no requirement for Phase I and Phase II ESA reports to be submitted to the DNR. Based on the proposed guidance, the PE or Hydrogeologist would have to sign the Phase I or Phase II reports only if it was provided as documentation, should the site require a response by the WDNR. However, based on the above, ASTM and NR700 requirements, it appears the Phase I and Phase II reports submitted as documentation should be evaluated based on the data provided and ASTM signature requirements.

With regard to the Professional Engineer Signatures for submittals that involve pavement:

Engineer signatures are certainly appropriate when engineered systems/controls are in place, however, this should not be an across the board requirement as implied in the table. An example would be in cases where pavement (concrete/asphalt) is involved. To require engineer supervision and certification for a paved surface to be removed/replaced/repaired adds significant undue costs for property owners/responsible parties when in 99% of the cases an asphalt/concrete company addresses the needs.

o Examples associated with the above could be removal/replacement/repair following soil boring/monitoring well installation/removal, or simply modification of continuing obligations as the result of repaving or tank system replacement when impacted soil is not removed or moved around the property.

2

With regard to hydrogeologist/PE certification for all submittals listed in the table:

Requiring PE/Hydrogeologist signature should be at the discretion of the professional managing the site for the “self implementing” rule. NR700 does not require a Hydrogeologist or PE certification of all reports listed in the table. As an example, the simple submittal of soil or groundwater analytical results collected by field staff, again adds significant additional costs for the property owners/responsible party if a PE/Hydrogeologist must certify. Full analysis and interpretation is provided at time the Site Investigation Report (SIR)/Closure submittal, which requires PE/Hydrogeologist certifications.

Based on the above, PE/Hydrogeologist/Scientist involvement is necessary to complete the work required in NR700, however to require the certification for all submittals in the table, even though many are quite simple, do not require and often do not warrant PE/Hydrogeologist certification; adds exponential undue costs for owners/responsible parties, when there are already controls in place where the professional certifications are required (i.e. SIR, Closure). In addition to the above comments regarding the proposed signature requirements, GEC would also like to comment on the nature of these proposed changes as they pertain to the rule changes made to the NR712 hydrogeologist definition of 2013. It is understood that changes to the hydrogeologist definition were previously denied by the legislature and were amended within the WDNR code. The WDNR often makes it clear that they received limited comments during the comment period of for the hydrogeologist code changes during 2012. However, it should be noted that there is not a “list” of hydrogeologists working in the State of Wisconsin and there is no way to know who was actually informed of proposed changes at that time. In addition, environmental consultants at that time were informed by WDNR staff that a professional (engineer, hydrogeologist, P.G.) could sign site investigation reports and closure reports. There were no required criteria for specific certifications to sign specific documents on the basis of the contamination detected (i.e. soil and/or groundwater), which can be seen on the current WDNR closure form and the guidance table discussed above, which requires a signature by a P.E. or P.G or Hydrogeologist or Scientist. As a result, engineering companies employing hydrogeologists at the time of the 2012/2013 rule change would have no reason to require additional credentials, such as a P.G., since there was no requirement for one. Since the original rule change to the definition of a hydrogeologist in 2013, the WDNR has already implemented a change to the certifications necessary for signing reports and now is attempting to implement other changes that would require additional certification requirements that would go against the original changes and understanding of the rule in 2013. It makes sense that people currently graduating from college and seeking employment in this field should know the requirements/credentials for completing this type of work in the future. However, it seems unjust to have stripped those of the credentials who graduated and qualified under the definition of a hydrogeologist prior to the 2013 rule change and may have worked in this field for 20+ years. It also seems unjust to continue to attempt to amend the report signing certifications necessary since many were not aware of the original rule change or what a hydrogeologist (prior to 2013) had a chance to comment on. GEC hopes you will take these comments into consideration when finalizing the guidance. If you have questions or would like to discuss, do not hesitate at any time. Thank you so much, GEC Staff

April 4, 2018 Ms. Christine Haag Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 RE: Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 712 Qualifications and Certifications (RR-081) -

Public Comment Period Dear Ms. Haag: Thank you for the opportunity to present this public comment and a thank you for the coordinated efforts to provide clarification and direction to NR 712. Overall, I believe this is a step in the right direction by providing distinction amongst professional engineers, professional geologists/hydrogeologists, and soil scientists within their respective qualifications. However, I respectfully disagree with the stance of the proposed clarification with regard to Professional Geologists/Hydrogeologists (Geologists). I fully realize that this is not a Code change and this comment should not be considered as such. My interpretation is much different, and I do not agree with the clarification provided. I believe Professional Geologists maintain the same authority as a Professional Engineer in referencing the first column on Page 9 of the proposed changes and I do not believe that is clearly defined in the Code(s) to make that distinction otherwise. Therefore, a distinct clarification on a code that has not been enforced consistently due to interpretation is not a solution. The solution should be to well define (change) the Code, not provide opinion in an attempt to clarify something that doesn’t have the substance to clarify in the first place. As a licensed and registered Professional Geologist, we have an ethical and legal responsibility to provide responsible and quality work to our clients, as well as, to the DNR. Likewise, the State of Wisconsin has an ethical and legal responsibility to the residents of Wisconsin. Therefore, I do understand the stance of the clarification when based solely of public perception. However, as a professional within the industry, I feel that this clarification is not a responsible act. The proposed clarification clearly provides no authority for a State of Wisconsin licensed and registered Professional Geologist to supervise or certify soil management plans under NR 718.12. I believe this to be in conflict with NR 712.07 Requirements for Submittal Preparation. Wisconsin Adm. Code ch NR 712.07(1) specifically states that “Submittals that are prepared to satisfy the requirements of s. NR 708.11 (4) or 708.13 or chs. NR 716 to 754, which require the performance of engineering services or scientific evaluations, including phase I and phase II environmental site assessments shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a professional engineer, hydrogeologist,

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/administrativecode/NR%20708.11(4)

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/administrativecode/NR%20708.13

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/administrativecode/ch.%20NR%20716

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/administrativecode/ch.%20NR%20754

2

or scientist, except as provided in s. NR 712.11. All phases of work necessary to obtain data, develop conclusions, recommendations and prepare submittals shall be conducted or supervised by the professional engineer, hydrogeologist, or scientist.” I do not believe the definition or criteria is available within the code to make the specific clarification that is being proposed. These are tasks well within a Professional Geologist’s ability and based on my interpretation, the language in NR 712.07(1) clearly states that a Professional Geologist (Hydrogeologist) has the authority to conduct or supervise work specifically within NR 718.12. The proposed clarification will essentially pull a Professional Geologist’s authority regarding soil, which is an unintended consequence of a clarification. Additionally, that is not the purpose of a clarification. This is akin to not allowing a surgeon the authority to use a scalpel. A Professional Geologist must have a thorough understanding of the soil and site conditions prior to making any groundwater determinations. So then, why would a Professional Geologist be considered to intelligently speak on groundwater if they aren’t (within this clarification) given the authority to supervise and certify soil plans? That is an area that the clarification cannot help with. There is a practical aspect that the proposed clarification has not addressed, and that is one of those items. I have not found, within the Code or within the documentation provided, where it specifically states that a Professional Engineer has that authority and a Professional Geologist does not. As already defined in NR 712.03, a Professional Geologist (Hydrogeologist) shall also have acquired, through education and field experience, the ability to direct the drilling of borings and the installation and development of wells, describe and classify geologic samples, and evaluate and interpret geologic and hydrogeologic data. Additionally, GHSS 2.04(2)(e)(i)( and (j), directly relate specifically to the skill-set needed to have authority within NR 700-726. Furthermore, under GHSS 2.06, prior to licensure, an applicant must pass a nationally recognized State Board of Geology examination. Additionally, within the certification statement of a Hydrogeologist, it states that that the Hydrogeologist, upon signing, affirms that the document adheres to ALL applicable requirements in chs. NR 700 to NR 726, Wis Adm. Code. To me, I interpret that as a Hydrogeologist having authority over NR 700 through NR 726. The failure with this clarification; it sets a precedent that a licensed and registered Professional Geologist will not have the authority to supervise and certify a Soil Management Plan within NR 712.18. This is not the intention of a clarification, yet this is how it will essentially work. These tasks in themselves are of paramount importance to Professional Geologists, as well as, their clients that rely on them to conduct this work. Again, this clarification is not a solution and it will likely have unintended consequences as a result. If the clarification to NR 712 goes through as proposed, this could significantly de-value the worth of Professional Geologists, not provide our clients with the best product, and provide a very clear statement that the license dues of our 1,300+ licensed and registered Professional Geologists are not valued.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/administrativecode/NR%20712.11

3

As a licensed and registered Professional Geologist within the State of Wisconsin, I urge you to reconsider this position. This is not something that can be “fixed” with a clarification because it will cause more damage than good. Again, thank you for this opportunity to provide this public comment and thank you for your efforts to bring consistency and clarity to NR 712. Please consider my proposal to work towards a Code change, not a clarification that is essentially nothing more than a recorded statement of opinion that may hold unintended consequences. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my opinion of the proposed clarification. Sincerely,

OMNNI Associates, Inc.

Christopher J. Rogers, P.G. Hydrogeologist / Project Manager

1


From: Chris Rogers <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:25 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: Public Comment Re: NR 712 Attachments: NR 712 Public Comment Final.pdf

Dear Christine, Please find my attached public comment regarding the proposed NR 712 clarification. This comment (opinion) is based on my interpretation of the current Code based against the clarification that is being offered. Overall, I think this is a great effort, but I do have some real concerns with the clarification. Specifically, I believe that this will likely require a Code change rather than a clarification. Maybe I am off-base and my interpretations do not align with the remainder of the scientific community. If so, I will retract my comments, where appropriate. If you have any questions regarding my comment(s), please feel free to let me know. Sincerely, Chris Rogers CHRISTOPHER J. ROGERS P.G. Project Manager / Hydrogeologist

OMNNI ASSOCIATES, INC. ONE SYSTEMS DRIVE, APPLETON, WI 54914 P:920-830-6331 C: 920-203-8374

Check us out on: Website | Facebook | Twitter This email is subject to OMNNI Associates, Inc. Electronic File Disclaimer. For full disclaimer see http://www.omnni.org/legal/OMNNI_Email_Disclaimer.pdf

1


From: Wayne Fassbender <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:15 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: Proposed NR 712 Revisions

Hi Christine: Just thought I would give you my input regarding the above revisions. I am in general concurrence with most of this, except for some remedial plans that need to be signed by a registered professional engineer. I have been a registered professional geologist in the environmental consulting business for almost 30 years. Remedial methods have changed over the years, especially when it comes to groundwater treatment. Most groundwater remediation projects involve subsurface injections, rather than mechanical systems. Groundwater injections require a good deal of hydrogeologic knowledge, and very little engineering. Basically, the subsurface geology and groundwater properties are needed, with added knowledge of geochemistry. It is my opinion that groundwater remediation projects involving only the injection of remedial products should not require the approval and signature of a both a hydrogeologist/hydrologist and an engineer, but could be signed by either. I would also ensure that if an engineer signed off on such a project, that they have a background in civil, mechanical, or environmental engineering and that individual has similar background experience and training in geologic/hydrogeologic subject matter. Better yet, require that only hydrogeologists and hydrologists sign off on these types of groundwater remediation projects. I would agree that any mechanical systems designed and built to treat groundwater should require both a signature of a hydrogeologist/hydrologist and an engineer. I would also consider not requiring the signature of both an engineer and scientist for simple excavations to remove contaminated soil. By simple, I mean excavations in clay soil and/or excavations located sufficiently away from buildings that would not put building foundations at risk. All companies performing trenching and excavating operations know the safety precautions to take while doing so, and should be keeping their employees current on OSHA and HAZWOPPER training. Excavators also know the dangers involved with excavating and the precautions that are necessary to keep workers safe. Wayne P. Fassbender, PG Senior Project Manager EnviroForensics | N16 W23390 Stone Ridge Drive, Suite G | Waukesha, WI 53188 P. 414-982-3988 | C. 262-490-6472 | F. 262-510-0460 www.enviroforensics.com | www.policyfind.com

2

Privileged and Confidential This communication and any attachments constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any interception, review, copying, disclosure, use or distribution of this communication by others is strictly prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any unauthorized reliance on this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the communication.

1


From: Trenton Ott <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 11:38 AMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: NR712 Public Comment Period

To whom it may concern- In regards to the requirement to have a hydrogeologist supervise and certify the submittal of any report that includes an investigation or evaluation of groundwater conditions, or groundwater related conclusions or recommendations. In my experience that would include every submittal. I say that because any soil sampling includes an interpretation of the possible effects to groundwater, which could be considered an evaluation of groundwater conditions and/or a conclusion. First, I would not think that the only entity qualified to make such a certification would be a hydrogeologist. Second, it seems an unreasonable burden to expect every firm (especially smaller ones) to have on staff a hydrogeologist. Given the presence of a professional enginneer (PE) and/or soil scientist that has extensive education in related hydrologeologic fields and extensive field experience in groundwater evaluations and hydrogeologic conditions, they surely would qualify to make such a certification. Is there not some way of certification available that one could or should be able to utilize to justify their ability and qualifications (either through education, experience, or both) to make such evaluations, conclusions, or recommendations when it comes to sites with groundwater? -- Trenton J. Ott Project Manager Friess Environmental Consulting, Inc. office (414) 228-9815 mobile (414) 688-6683 [email protected]

1


From: Raghu Singh <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:16 AMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: NR 712 Comments Due 4/4/2018Attachments: NR 712 Comments.pdf

Good Morning Christine: Enclosed please find my 14-pages comments. Thank you -- Raghu B. Singh, Ph. D. Environmental Professional OM Enterprises, Inc. 124 W Scott Street Fond du Lac,WI 54935-2270 (262) 853-0712

1


From: Wedekind, James <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 11:17 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]: Comments to NR 712 Qualification and Certifications (RR-081)

March 18, 2018 Dear Ms. Haag As a professional geologist with active registrations in 10 states including Wisconsin, I have the following comments regarding the definition of a hydrogeologist:

The proposed rule is superfluous with the current Professional Geologist program and undermines the legitimacy of the current Professional Geologist registration. It is indeed insulting to the many geologists that worked for several years to get professional registration passed through the legislature in 2000. The proposed legislation adds unneeded bureaucracy and confusion to an already burdensome program.

Engineers, despite having numerous different degree programs offer only ONE Professional Engineer license. Why is it that Wisconsin thinks it is necessary to provide a separate designation for a subset of the discipline? Why not have a separate category for structural geologists? Or paleontologists? Or volcanologists? In fact, it appears this entire effort may be an attempt to allow individuals who lack the basic geologic knowledge required to pass the ASBOG examination to have a “back door” method of a dubious “registration” as a hydrogeologist. In case the WDNR is unaware, the ASBOG examination has a good portion of it devoted to hydrogeology. The ASBOG program was set up for the very reason to underscore that to be a practicing geologist – no matter what your chosen field – requires a basic knowledge of ALL the subdisciplines of geology.

It is absurd that the State of Wisconsin would allow an individual that has merely taken six semester hours of hydrogeology, described soils, and installed some monitoring wells is deemed more qualified than an individual with say, a Master’s degree in geology, 30+ years of hydrogeology experience, installed hundreds of monitoring wells, collected samples from hundreds more, drawn and interpreted an equal number of potentiometric and water table contour maps, authored hundreds of hydrogeologic reports, authored professional papers on hydrogeology, and supervised over 50 hydrogeologists over this timeframe. Such an individual is having his or her body of knowledge dismissed, for lack of college coursework that may not have even been offered at their chosen university.

The NR 700 closure request document requires a hydrogeologist as a signatory solely because it includes a water table map. Preparation of cross sections can be done by a geologist. The inference being that only someone who has taken six semester hours of hydrogeology is qualified to produce such a map. That is laughable. First off, drawing isocontours is a primary tenet of many of the various subdisciplines in geology including geotechnical, structural, mining, and metamorphic geology. I have marked up numerous poorly constructed groundwater isocontour maps drawn by geologists with more than six hours of hydrogeology. It requires experience far and away more than college coursework.

Most college hydrogeology courses spend an inordinate amount of time on porous media flow and transport. However, in practice, most of the more important aquifers occur in fractured rock and karst aquifers. How is it then that geologists with specialties in stratigraphy, structural, and karst systems are left out of the equation? Knowledge of those disciplines are probably every bit if not more important to groundwater flow in those systems as someone who is well versed in Darcian flow. Again, this requirement is sorely misguided and unnecessary.

2

There is no benefit to the safety or welfare of the citizens of Wisconsin to making a separate designation for one branch of the profession. The public is best served by individuals with broad knowledge of the profession as already provided by the current geologist registration program. If the WDNR truly wished to better protect the citizens with additional requirements of a subdiscipline of geology it would be more protective to carve out the practice of engineering geology or geotechnical practice since those disciplines more directly deal with issues of public safety.

The current NR 700 requirement that someone with six semester hours in a hydrogeology class (without an experience or testing requirement, no less!) is discriminatory to seasoned professionals who have worked for decades as hydrogeologists yet attended a college that lacked a hydrogeology program. This as quite common in the 1970s before the rise of environmental geology as a discipline. Finally, it is worrisome that the WDNR has chosen to add such a meaningless and wholly bureaucratic requirement to the case closure process when they have so many more pressing issues on their plates. We, the regulated public find it disheartening to see so much time and effort placed on accomplishing another layer governance that will do nothing to further protect the people of Wisconsin that what is currently in place. If WDNR is dead-set on retaining this measure, at a minimum please consider revising the language to include registered professional geologists with five-to-10 years’ experience as a hydrogeologist as qualified to sign an NR 700 closure request. That would be a wise and less discriminatory way of insuring quality work will be produced.

I have copied the staff of Senator Jon Erpenbach as he is my representative in the Assembly. I feel Jon is a reasonable man and an excellent public servant. Please make him aware of my concerns and let him know that I would be happy to meet with him to discuss this issue. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.

James Wedekind, P.G.* Senior Hydrogeologist *Licensed in GA, FL, IL, IN, MN, MO, NC, TN, TX, WI

708 Heartland Trail, Suite 3000, Madison, WI 53717 T: 608.826.3666 | F: 608.826.3941 | C: 608.213.3012

LinkedIn | Twitter | Blog | Flickr | www.trcsolutions.com

1


From: Matt Dahlem <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:27 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: Comments on Draft Guidance RR-081 Certifications under NR 712

Importance: High

Christine, Im a PG, and I feel that PGs should be able to do everything in NR 712. We not only have degrees in the field but also have passed the FG and PG exam or have been grandfathered in to obtain the PG when there was no PG exam. Either way, I feel the PG for what DNR requires is as capable or even more capable than PEs in this field. Additionally, NR 712 states there is a Professional Engineer (PE) but no Professional Geologist (PG). To make the rule more clear there should be a PE and PG as opposed to PE, Hydro and Scientist. A PG should be like that of PE since we have went through the rigor of our applications (which includes everything in the language that the Hydro requires) and successfully passing the PG – which means we already have the necessary qualifications of Hydrogeologist but in addition have passed the PG. So for the sake of confusion there should probably be just a PE, PG, and PSS moving forward who can legally sign DNR documents. For those who do not have PGs but have the qualifications and/or experience of a Hydro, they should be given the opportunity to take the FG/PG exam in order to obtain a PG. I do feel, however, that those that do not possess a PG should not be able to sign documents that a PG/PE can sign. But I do feel that those who have a PE or PG should be able to sign any and all documents. So please issue a guideance that makes sense. A PG can and should be able to sign all the documents a PE can sign – this will keep the quality high, costs down and a lot more firms qualified. Issuing a code where PEs can sign some documents and PGs can sign other but not all documents is confusing and not right. Please consider my statements and thank you for your time. Matt

MATT DAHLEM, P.G. I Project Manager / Sr. Engineering Hydrogeologist Fehr Graham – Engineering & Environmental 1237 Pilgrim Road Plymouth, Wisconsin 53073 P: 920.892.2444 F: 920.892.2620 www.fehr-graham.com

1


From: Ken Ebbott <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:42 PMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRCc: Ken EbbottSubject: Comments on Draft Guidance RR-081 Certifications and Submittals under NR 712

Christine, I am a PG that has been working as an environmental consultant in Wisconsin since 1987. I find the interpretation of the current NR 712 requirements unnecessary and I fear RR-081 could be used to become excessively limiting. My main point is that requiring a PE stamp on all soil related issues is overkill and not necessary. It seems to me the intention of all of the NR 700 process is to have projects move forward with effective solutions to pollution problems. Certainly qualifications are needed, but if proper solutions to these typically simple situations are provided, I fail to understand why the DNR needs to worry that only PE’s sign off on soil-related submittals, etc. Getting hung up on the perceived limitations in training of the submitter is not as important as reviewing whether the proposed solution makes sense. For example, why would the state feel the need to require PE oversight of a simple interim action soil excavation of a gasoline spill, which we recently completed? We dug to one foot below grade, and the soil went to the landfill. If the DNR strictly enforces NR 712, our firm would have to involve licensed PE’s from other offices to oversee and stamp any submittals related to that work, and it simply is not needed. There is no particular training an typical engineer has received that provides them with greater understanding of a dig and dump. Degreed professionals with licenses (PE, PG, etc.) should be required to do the work, but dividing up the specialties in a soil only, groundwater only manner is not necessary. As I’m sure you’ve been hearing, there are many environmental professionals that have only one or the other professional certification, either PE or PG, and many are perfectly capable of interpreting soil and groundwater. I don’t understand why the WDNR feels the need to come forward with this requirement at this time, and I wonder if this is a solution in search of a problem. It certainly appears that while it is indicated the Guidance is a mere clarification / interpretation of what the code in NR 712 already requires, I can’t help but believe this effort will result in a more stringent scrutiny and acceptance / potential rejection of report submittals, with more project delay, and with no actual benefit. If there is a significant problem with inadequately prepared reports being submitted to the DNR for approval by unqualified staff, WDNR Staff should review the submittals and reject them based on their shortcomings, and also mention the need for a qualified professional performing the work. Perhaps charging a second fee for a resubmittal of poorly prepared reports will rectify the problem, or eliminate bad actors. In the past few years it seems more and more WDNR decisions are being made by committee instead of by the WDNR professional staff individually. In this environment, I can envision a checklist being generated that serves as a gatekeeper to all submittals. Upon receipt, a report would be categorized as falling into the soil, groundwater, or both category, and then the report is either accepted or rejected based on the qualifications of the signatory. While the DNR may feel that this is what the current NR 712 rules intend, I don’t think it is a policy that advances sites to cleanup and closure. It could become merely another bureaucratic hurdle placed in the way of project progress. Also, knowing the training geology majors receive, I certainly think a PG has the ability to interpret soil issues. I don’t agree that geologists should be denied the authority to sign off on soil-only related submittals. Geologists likely have had more training in soils than most engineering specialties. I have worked on hundreds of PECFA sites, probably 100 ACCP sites, and more than 75 DERF sites, and the aggressive enforcement of the NR 712 certification requirements on reports will drive costs higher on all three of these financially challenged reimbursement programs. I doubt that enforcement of the proposed RR-081 guidance document, if enforced aggressively by the DNR, will provide any significant tangible benefit, and it will only complicate submittal and review of reports.

2

Please don’t issue this guidance, for I fear it might be strictly enforced, and fail to see how strict enforcement of RR-081 will benefit progress on environmental cleanup projects. Thanks, Ken

KENDRICK EBBOTT I P.G. Branch Manager Fehr Graham – Engineering & Environmental 1237 Pilgrim Road Plymouth, WI 53073 P: 920.892.2444 C: 920-980-4231 F: 920.892.2620 www.fehr-graham.com

1


From: William Gregg <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 11:17 AMTo: Haag, Christine T - DNRSubject: 712 guidance

Christine, I don’t see the need for NR712 requirements for qualifications or certifications of any kind – engineers or hydros. Don’t you think the people that pay for the work to be done will demand quality and weed out persons that don’t do a good job? Simplify the rules – don’t add more layers! Thanx, Bill William M. Gregg, P.G.

1210 East 115th Street Burnsville, MN 55337 651-262-4236 [email protected] www.summite.com