Top 10 Facts the Board Doesn't Want You to Know

1. The Disciplinary Process Took Over 13 Years

December 13, 2005: Complaint filed by Eagle Gas, Inc.
January 16, 2019: Final Order issued by Board

13 years and 1 month from complaint to final decision.

Federal courts have held that reasonable administrative timeframes mean "months, occasionally a year or two, but not several years or a decade." Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. FERC, 833 F.2d 341, 359 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

The Massachusetts LSP Board has no statute of limitations for disciplinary actions.

Even the LSP Association recognized this problem. In 2002, attorney David Li wrote to the Board:

"Like other causes of action, such as tort and contract claims, there should be a reasonable limitations period... Otherwise, LSPs could be subjected to long, drawn out investigations, during which the LSP could be prejudiced by witnesses' loss of memory or by the inadvertent destruction of documentary evidence."

Why This Matters

Witnesses couldn't remember events from 8 years earlier
Documents were lost
The science of LNAPL remediation evolved during this period, vindicating the original approach
Legal precedent suggests 3 years is the appropriate limitations period for similar cases

2. The Complaint Was Retaliatory

The Sequence of Events:

September 16, 2005: Eagle Gas terminated the contract with Decoulos & Company, owing $79,110.38 in fees
November 14, 2005: Through an attorney, notified Eagle that we were prepared to file suit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
December 13, 2005: Eagle filed a disciplinary complaint against Decoulos with the Board (less than 30 days later)
December 15, 2005: Suit filed in Plymouth Superior Court for unjust enrichment
July 23, 2007: Eagle and Decoulos reached a settlement agreement
August 6, 2007: Eagle requested that the Board withdraw the complaint, as agreed in the settlement
Board Response: Refused to withdraw the complaint, stating that "the filing of a complaint can never be retracted for any reason" because the Board "is bound to protect the public interest"

The Real Story

The complaint wasn't about protecting the public. It was about avoiding payment for professional services rendered. When that strategy failed and Eagle had to pay, they tried to withdraw the complaint.

The Board refused and prosecuted anyway.

Questions the Board Won't Answer

If this was about "public interest," why did the client want to withdraw the complaint after settling?
Why does the Board claim it "can never" withdraw a complaint, when it has discretion in all prosecutorial decisions?
How many other LSPs have been subjected to retaliatory complaints from clients trying to avoid paying bills?

3. Decoulos Discovered Major Environmental Contamination That Everyone Else Missed

May 16, 2003: During an inspection of the Eagle Gas Station area, Decoulos identified a sheen of oil on the surface of South Meadow Brook, approximately 700 feet downgradient of the gas station.

This contamination had been flowing continuously into the Brook, but no one had noticed it.

Who Failed to Find This Contamination?

Four previous LSPs hired by Richard Nantais (the prior owner):

Working from 1997-2003
None identified the stormwater pathway
None checked South Meadow Brook for contamination

MA DEP Inspector Thomas Potter:

Conducted field audit inspection on August 19, 1998
Issued Notice of Noncompliance on December 8, 1998
Never identified the stormwater pathway or the Brook contamination

What Decoulos Did

When the oil sheen was discovered:

Immediately contacted the MA DEP and Carver Fire Department for support and assistance
Identified the source: A stormwater outfall from the public right-of-way, approximately 700 feet from the gas station
Determined the pathway: Oil was entering the stormwater collection system through a catch basin downgradient of the gas station
Took immediate action to prevent continuous oil discharges into the Brook
Documented everything with photos, site plans, and detailed reports

Why His Training Made the Difference

As a Professional Civil Engineer with extensive experience in:

Stormwater management systems
Wetlands and waterways
Underground utility interactions with contamination

He understood how petroleum releases can travel through preferential pathways (like stormwater systems) that other professionals might not recognize.

None of the Board's witnesses against him understood any of this.

The Irony

Decoulos was disciplined for work related to a site where:

He discovered contamination others missed for 6 years
He prevented ongoing discharges to a waterway
He protected South Meadow Brook from continuing pollution

This is exactly what LSPs are supposed to do.

Environmental Law Violations That Others Ignored

The contamination that Decoulos discovered meant that:

The Town of Carver was violating the U.S. Clean Water Act by allowing its stormwater system to discharge petroleum to South Meadow Brook without knowledge or monitoring
Eagle Gas was violating Massachusetts Clean Waters Act (G.L. c.21, §§ 26-53), specifically Section 52A regarding oil discharges to stormwater systems

Instead of recognition, Decoulos got disciplined.

4. Decoulos Was Denied the Right to Confront Key Witnesses

Massachusetts Law Is Clear

G.L. c. 30A, § 12(3) states:

"[A]ny party to an adjudicatory proceeding shall be entitled as of right to the issue of subpoenas in the name of the agency conducting the proceeding. The party may have such subpoenas issued by a notary public or justice of the peace, or he may make written application to the agency, which shall forthwith issue the subpoenas requested."

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XII provides:

Every subject shall have a right... "to meet the witnesses against him face to face."

Critical Witnesses That Were Denied

Fred Civian

Commonwealth's Stormwater Phase II Coordinator
Ensured streams and rivers comply with U.S. Clean Water Act
Helped develop the LSP licensing program in the early 1990s
One of the few DEP employees who understood how stormwater contamination interacts with LSP duties under G.L. c. 21E
None of the Board's witnesses had his breadth of experience

Jonathan Hobill

Regional Engineer for MA DEP
Ultimate decision-maker on Eagle Gas Station response actions
Signed all approvals and denials for the work plans
Supervisor of Cynthia Baran (who directly oversaw the work)
Decoulos needed to confront him about why he rejected the cleanup plans and demanded an interceptor trench in the public right-of-way

Millie Garcia-Serrano

Sectional Chief of DEP Southeast Regional Office (2003-2005)
Supervisor of the DEP staff involved in the case
Now serves as Board Chairperson and Acting Executive Director
Obvious conflict of interest - how can she be impartial?

The Email Evidence That Was Denied

Cynthia Baran and Jonathan Hobill correspondence about Eagle Gas Station
John J. Fitzgerald (DEP's petroleum program leader) about LNAPL policy

The Presiding Officer denied access to these emails and they were sealed during the proceeding.

What Was in Those Sealed Emails?

When the Superior Court finally ordered the emails unsealed in 2021, they revealed:

DEP was developing new LNAPL policy during 2003-2005
John Fitzgerald acknowledged: "if one looks carefully in the MCP, NAPL is a bit of a sticky wicket"
DEP recognized the MCP didn't adequately address LNAPL procedures
This showed the standards that Decoulos was being judged by were unclear and evolving

This evidence was hidden from him during the hearing.

Even the Superior Court Judge Was Troubled

When Decoulos sought preliminary injunctive relief in January 2011, Superior Court Justice Thomas R. Murtagh wrote:

"The Court finds it troublesome, however, that DEP witnesses may be unavailable to plaintiff to defend against positions supported by other DEP employees."

He was right to be troubled. It violated Decoulos' fundamental rights.

The Harm This Caused

Without access to these witnesses, Decoulos couldn't:

Challenge the basis for denying his work plans
Show that DEP's own policies were unclear
Demonstrate that DEP standards were evolving
Confront those who made the decisions affecting a client
Present a complete defense

This wasn't a fair hearing. It was a rigged proceeding.

5. The Cleanup Methods Proposed Were Proven Right - After The Discipline

What Was Proposed in 2004

Cost-Effective, Passive LNAPL Recovery:

Between January 2004 and December 2004, using hand-bailing procedures:

Removed 30 gallons of LNAPL from the subsurface
Cost-effective and technically justified
Could have removed more if DEP hadn't ordered Eagle to stop
Decoulos' proposed approach:
Excavate and dispose of LNAPL-contaminated soil at the source
Passively collect accumulated oil in the subsurface
Based on understanding that tight silt and clay soils (hydraulic conductivity: 1.66 x 10⁻⁵ cm/sec) prevented effective mechanical recovery

Total estimated cost: Under $100,000

What DEP Demanded Instead

DEP rejected Decoulos' proposals in July and November 2004, demanding:

Expensive active LNAPL recovery using high vacuum extraction
Groundwater treatment systems
Interceptor trench in middle of public right-of-way

The Results Speak for Themselves

Decoulos' Approach (2004):

30 gallons removed in 11 months
Using passive, cost-effective methods
Approximately $79,000 spent

DEP-Mandated Approach (2007-2018):

Only 16 gallons removed in 11 years
Using expensive active recovery systems
Over $1.1 million in taxpayer funds spent

Half the product in ten times the time at fifteen times the cost.

The Science Vindicated The Approach

At the time of the work (2003-2005):

LNAPL science was evolving rapidly
MCP had no specific LNAPL guidance
DEP had no official LNAPL policy

April 2005: LSP Association Technical Practices Committee published papers showing:

LNAPL migration in subsurface is very different than previously assumed
The "Tank and Pancake" model DEP relied on was outdated
Decoulos' determinations were exactly in line with these recommendations

February 19, 2016: DEP finally issued official policy:

"Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) and the MCP: Guidance for Site Assessment and Closure"
Consistent with the approach Decoulos had proposed in 2004

Unsealed Evidence (2021): The hidden DEP emails showed:

January 2010: DEP recognized "Tank and Pancake" model should be replaced
DEP knew LNAPL in low hydraulic conductivity soils similar to Eagle Gas Station were "Not Likely to Be Recoverable"
This was exactly what Decoulos had told them in 2004

The Expert Agreed

Richard L. Doherty:

Master's degree in environmental engineering from MIT
Served as expert for U.S. Department of Justice
Affirmed the independent professional judgment that Decoulos exercised
Doherty's testimony was ignored

The Technical Reality

The low permeability of Eagle Gas Station soils made active recovery ineffective:

Hydraulic conductivity: 1.66 x 10⁻⁵ cm/sec
Confirmed by field testing
Later confirmed by successor LSPs
Means groundwater (and LNAPL) moves very slowly through the soil
Active pumping systems don't work well in these conditions

Decoulos was right. DEP was wrong. Science proved it. But he was still disciplined.

6. Over $1 Million in Taxpayer Funds Wasted

The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Fund

Every time you fill up your gas tank in Massachusetts, you pay $0.02686 per gallon into the UST Petroleum Product Cleanup Fund.

This fund exists to help gas station owners clean up petroleum releases.

Your tax dollars should be spent wisely.

The Eagle Gas Station Spending

October 2016: The UST Program informed Decoulos they had reimbursed Eagle Gas $1,188,495.70 for assessment and remediation costs.

That's well over $1 million of taxpayer money.

What Your Money Bought

25 years (1997-2022):

4 separate oil releases reported
12 different LSPs hired
Still no permanent cleanup closure achieved

Status today: The site continues under a temporary solution with no end in sight.

What It Should Have Cost

During oral argument before the Board on May 16, 2018, Decoulos stated:

"The cleanup action at Eagle Gas Station could have been completed for less than $100,000."

The Math

Taxpayer cost with DEP approach: $1,188,495.70+
Estimated cost from Decoulos: Under $100,000
Waste: Over $1,000,000

That's 10 times more expensive than necessary.

Why The Estimate Is Credible

Decoulos completed a similar project in Middleton:

Direct excavation of LNAPL-contaminated soil
Disposal at approved facility
Quick, effective, and controlled cost

The approach works. DEP just wouldn't let him use it.

The UST Fund's Own Standards

G.L. c. 21J, § 4 states the purpose of the fund:

"The purpose of the fund shall be to prevent the need for environmental cleanup actions and to expedite environmental cleanup action..."

The UST Program regulations at 503 CMR 2.02, 2.11 require:

"all reimbursable costs related to a Response Action are reasonable, appropriate, cost-effective, and necessary"

By 2019, Even the UST Program Recognized the Problem

January 31, 2019: The UST Program implemented a "Site Cleanup Status Review Policy – Pilot Program"

Purpose: Control remediation costs related to UST system failures

Why it was needed: "A fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all reimbursable costs... are reasonable, appropriate, cost-effective, and necessary"

This policy came 14 years too late for Eagle Gas Station.

Who Benefits from Expensive, Long-Term Remediation?

Not the environment: The site still isn't cleaned up after 25 years

Not the taxpayers: Your money is wasted on ineffective methods

Not the gas station owner: They're still dealing with this decades later

Who does benefit?

Consulting firms billing for years of work
Equipment vendors selling expensive remediation systems
The bureaucracy that justifies its existence through complicated, drawn-out processes

This isn't environmental protection. It's environmental theater.

The Public Interest Question

The Board claimed it couldn't withdraw Eagle's complaint because it's "bound to protect the public interest."

Ask yourself:

Is spending $1+ million of public funds on an incomplete cleanup "protecting the public interest"?
Is ignoring a $100,000 solution "protecting the public interest"?
Is disciplining the LSP who could have saved taxpayers $1 million "protecting the public interest"?

7. MassDEP Should Have Been a Party

The Structural Problem

The Board prosecuted Decoulos for violating professional standards.

But MA DEP controlled whether his work was acceptable:

Approved or denied work plans
Supervised the site through regional staff
Made all final decisions about response actions
Could audit work under G.L. c. 21E, § 3A

This created an impossible situation:

Board witnesses claimed Decoulos' work was deficient
But he couldn't call DEP witnesses to explain why they approved some actions and denied others
Decoulos couldn't cross-examine DEP decision-makers
Decoulos couldn't obtain DEP documents and emails

It's a Rigged Game

Imagine a court case where:

The prosecutor's witnesses all work for Company A
Your defense depends on testimony from Company A's decision-makers
But Company A isn't a party to the case
So you can't subpoena anyone from Company A
And the prosecutor can block access to Company A's documents

That's exactly what happened to Decoulos.

Even a Board Member Admitted the Problem

Robert Luhrs, a Board member who later testified against me, stated at a Board meeting:

"he believed the separation that is supposed to exist between the LSP Board and MassDEP in reality no longer exists."

If there's no real separation, how can an LSP get a fair hearing when MassDEP employees are the key witnesses about the work?

Massachusetts Law Requires Necessary Parties

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 19 recognizes that some parties are "necessary and indispensable."

When a necessary party can't be joined, the case should be dismissed.

The absence of DEP as a party caused substantial prejudice:

Decoulos couldn't defend against charges without confronting DEP decision-makers
He couldn't show that DEP's own standards were unclear and evolving, and
He couldn't obtain critical evidence about DEP policy development

The Real Reason DEP Wasn't Joined

They knew Decoulos would expose the problems with their decision-making.

If DEP had been a party, he could have shown:

Their LNAPL policies were unclear and evolving
They were developing new guidance while prosecuting him
Their demands were based on outdated science
Their approach wasted massive public funds
They failed to identify historic contamination that Decoulos found

Keeping DEP out of the case kept these facts hidden.

The Constitutional Problem

Article XXIX, Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:

"It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit..."

How can a hearing be fair when:

The agency supervising your work isn't a party
You can't call witnesses from that agency
You can't obtain documents from that agency
But that agency's employees can testify against you

It can't be. And it wasn't.

8. Conflicts of Interest Tainted the Process

Conflict #1: The Board Member Who Selected the Judge, Then Testified Against Decoulos

Robert Luhrs was a member of the Board's Professional Conduct Committee.

October 29, 2009: The Committee held a meeting where they:

Interviewed Timothy M. Jones (a new Presiding Officer at DEP's Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution)
Voted to designate Jones as the sole Presiding Officer for pending adjudicatory appeals, including the Decoulos case

January 26-27, 2011 and February 10, 2011: Robert Luhrs testified as a witness against Decoulos at the adjudicatory hearing presided over by Timothy Jones.

How is this impartial?

A Board member who:

Selected the judge
Then testified against Decoulos before that judge
Then voted (as a Board member) on the final discipline

At every level, Robert Luhrs was involved in the prosecution.

Conflict #2: The Current Board Chair Was a DEP Supervisor During The Work

Millie Garcia-Serrano was:

Sectional Chief of the DEP Southeast Regional Office during 2003-2005
Supervised DEP employees involved in overseeing work at the Eagle Gas Station
In the chain of command for all DEP decisions about the site

Today, Millie Garcia-Serrano is:

Board Chairperson
Assistant Commissioner of MassDEP

The Questions This Raises

About Garcia-Serrano:

Did she review or approve any of the decisions about the work plans?
Did she supervise Jonathan Hobill, Cynthia Baran, or other DEP staff involved in the Decoulos case?
Did she know about the stormwater contamination Decoulos discovered?
Did she have any role in DEP's enforcement decisions?

Decoulos couldn't ask her these questions because:

He was denied the right to subpoena her during the adjudicatory hearing
She wasn't a party to the case
The Presiding Officer denied the witness requests

Then she's in charge of the Board that disciplined Decoulos.

Conflict #3: Executive Director Served as Prosecutor

Beverly Coles-Roby served as:

Executive Director of the Board (managing the Board's operations)
Prosecuting attorney at the adjudicatory hearing

On April 12, 2013, the late attorney Peter Feuerbach wrote to Coles-Roby that she:

"...may need to appoint special counsel in this matter because she had a conflict due to her supervision of Attorney Read and/or former Board Counsel, Terry Wood, in their prosecution of this matter. We request that the Board clarify the facts concerning this conflict and explain its basis for new counsel and the process for appointing special counsel."

No response. No explanation. No appointment of independent counsel.

Coles-Roby prosecuted Decoulos while simultaneously running the Board.

What "Impartial" Means

Massachusetts Constitution, Article XXIX:

"It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit."

Police Com'r of Boston v. Municipal Court of West Roxbury Dist., 368 Mass. 501, 507 (1975):

Administrative hearing officers are "governed, as are masters and auditors, by the same high standards as have been set for judges."

These Standards Were Violated

A hearing officer cannot be impartial when:

Selected by a Board member who later testifies against the defendant
Working within a system where the Board Chair was a DEP supervisor during the relevant time period
Appointed by an Executive Director who also serves as prosecutor

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees:

Lucia v. SEC, 138 S.Ct. 2044 (2018): Administrative Law Judges must meet constitutional standards of impartiality comparable to Article III judges.

This Isn't Just About Decoulos

Every LSP in Massachusetts should be concerned:

If the Board can:

Let a member select the judge, then testify before that judge
Have the current Chair be a former DEP supervisor during relevant events
Let the Executive Director also serve as prosecutor

Then no LSP can expect a fair hearing.

9. Memory Loss From Delay Destroyed A Defense

The 8-Year Gap

May 16, 2003: Decoulos discovers oil contamination in South Meadow Brook and immediately notified DEP and Carver Fire Department

January 26, 2011: Mark Jablonski (DEP employee) testified at the adjudicatory hearing about events from May 16, 2003

Nearly 8 years had passed.

What Jablonski Couldn't Remember

During cross-examination, Jablonski:

Could not recall specific actions and events
Stated he had no independent memory of many details
Had to rely entirely on his written notes from 2003

This is exactly what research on memory and judicial proceedings warns about.

Worse: He Contradicted His Own Written Record

Jablonski's Release Log Form Attachment dated May 16, 2003 specifically stated:

LNAPL product was observed only in catch basin number four (CB-4)
This was documented contemporaneously on site

But at the hearing on January 26, 2011, Jablonski testified:

He observed product in a different manhole
This contradicted his own written observations from 2003

Decoulos challenged him on cross-examination.

The Presiding Officer accepted his hearing testimony instead of his contemporaneous written record.

The Board agreed.

Why This Matters

Contemporaneous records are more reliable than 8-year-old memories.

This is basic evidence law. When a witness's testimony at trial conflicts with their contemporaneous written observations, courts typically:

Give more weight to the written record
Question the reliability of the later testimony
Recognize that memory fades and becomes reconstructed over time

But not in this case.

The Research Supports Decoulos

Howe, Mark L. and Knott, Lauren M., The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences, Memory, 2015, Jul 4: 23(5):

Memory degrades significantly over time
Witnesses may unconsciously reconstruct memories
Contemporaneous records are far more reliable than later testimony
Long delays between events and testimony create serious reliability problems

This isn't speculation. It's cognitive science.

This Is Why Statutes of Limitations Exist

Criminal and civil cases have statutes of limitations because:

Memory fades
Evidence disappears
Witnesses become unavailable
Defendants cannot mount an effective defense

Administrative proceedings should have the same protections.

In 2002, attorney David Li warned the Board about exactly this problem:

"Otherwise, LSPs could be subjected to long, drawn out investigations, during which the LSP could be prejudiced by witnesses' loss of memory or by the inadvertent destruction of documentary evidence."

His prediction came true ... and Decoulos' defense was prejudiced.

Even the Federal Courts Recognize This

Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1984):

"Excessive delay saps the public confidence in an agency's ability to discharge its responsibilities and creates uncertainty for the parties..."

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. F.C.C., 627 F.2d 322, 341 (D.C. Cir. 1980):

"Delay in the resolution of administrative proceedings can also deprive regulated entities... of rights and economic opportunities without the due process the Constitution requires."

The Constitutional Violation

Article XI, Massachusetts Declaration of Rights:

"Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay..."

13 years is not "promptly and without delay."

10. The Case Still Matters Today

This isn't ancient history.

This case has ongoing implications for:

Every LSP in Massachusetts

You are at risk because:

No statute of limitations protects you - a complaint can be filed years or decades after your work
You may be denied critical witnesses - if DEP employees were involved, you may not be able to subpoena them
Evolving science can be used against you - standards that develop after your work can be applied retroactively
The process can take over a decade - your career will be in limbo while the Board deliberates
Conflicts of interest may taint your hearing - Board members may have connections to events in your case
The Board and DEP are not truly separate - as Board member Luhrs admitted, "the separation... in reality no longer exists"
Cost-effective solutions may be rejected - even if you propose approaches that save taxpayer money
Political considerations may override technical merit - bureaucratic preferences may outweigh good engineering

Every Massachusetts Taxpayer

Your money is being wasted because:

The system incentivizes expensive, long-term remediation - not quick, cost-effective solutions
Over $1 million was spent at one gas station when the cleanup could have cost under $100,000
25 years later, sites remain uncleaned - despite massive expenditures
The UST Fund comes from your gas taxes - $0.02686 per gallon you pump
There's no accountability for waste - DEP faces no consequences for inefficient cleanups
The "semi-privatized" LSP program isn't working - at least not at sites where DEP maintains heavy control

Environmental Protection in Massachusetts

The environment suffers because:

Focus on process over results - compliance with bureaucratic requirements rather than actual cleanup
Delays mean continued contamination - the longer cleanups take, the longer contamination remains
Expensive approaches aren't necessarily better - sometimes simpler solutions work better
Innovation is discouraged - LSPs learn to follow DEP preferences rather than propose optimal solutions
Good professionals are driven from the field - who wants to be an LSP under these conditions?

Due Process for All Administrative Proceedings

The legal principles violated here apply broadly:

Right to confront witnesses - critical in all adversarial proceedings
Impartial decision-makers - essential to fair hearings
Reasonable timeframes - justice delayed is justice denied
Access to evidence - defendants must be able to mount a complete defense
Necessary parties must be joined - can't have a fair hearing without key parties
Statutes of limitations - protect against stale claims and faded memories

If these principles can be violated in LSP discipline cases, they can be violated in:

Medical license proceedings
Attorney discipline cases
Professional engineer complaints
Contractor licensing disputes
Any other administrative adjudication

What Needs to Change

For the LSP Board:

Implement a statute of limitations (3 years is reasonable, consistent with comparable tort actions)
Require DEP to be a party when DEP involvement is central to the allegations
Guarantee subpoena rights actually mean something
Prohibit Board members from testifying in cases they've overseen
Establish strict conflict-of-interest rules including recusal requirements
Implement strict timeframes for completing investigations and hearings
Provide discovery rights comparable to civil litigation

For MassDEP:

Develop clear, stable LNAPL guidance - partially completed in 2016, but still has no clear guidance on remedial actions in disparate soils
Require cost-benefit analysis of proposed remediation approaches
Stop defaulting to expensive, long-term solutions when simpler approaches would work
Create real separation from the LSP Board - no more dual roles
Allow LSPs to exercise professional judgment as the law intended

For the Legislature:

Amend G.L. c. 21A, §§ 19-19J to include statute of limitations
Require LSP Board to issue annual report on case processing times
Mandate DEP be a party when DEP oversight is at issue
Strengthen due process protections in administrative proceedings
Review UST Fund expenditures for cost-effectiveness

Why Speak Out?

Other LSPs deserve to know what they're facing - the system is broken and they need to protect themselves
Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is wasted - over $1 million at one gas station is outrageous
The environment deserves better - effective, efficient cleanups rather than bureaucratic theater
Due process matters - the Board and MassDEP have demonstrated that it can be violated for anyone
The truth needs to be told - despite the Board's Final Order, Decoulos acted professionally, protected the environment, and tried to save taxpayer money