|
|
|
EPA TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TESTING AFTER TCE
RISK ASSESSMENT
EPA will require the parties responsible for contamination
at a California Superfund site to perform additional testing
for trichlorethylene (TCE) because of concerns raised by a
controversial agency risk assessment, which found that TCE
posed a much higher risk of cancer than previously thought,
according to agency sources.
The Region IX request marks one of the first instances that
EPA has required additional testing for TCE in response to the
risk assessment released last summer, and raises the
possibility of additional widespread testing for the
contaminant at numerous Superfund sites around the country,
agency sources say. TCE is one of the most common Superfund
pollutants and was a widely used degreaser at manufacturing
and defense sites before its health risks were discovered.
The additional testing called for by the region confirms
the fears of the industry and military officials who
criticized the TCE review as flawed and worried that it would
lead to additional cleanup costs. "It will require much more
burdensome remediation plans," says one industry source, who
says industry and the Department of Defense (DOD) "have been
complaining to everyone who will listen" about risk
assessment, including the White House Office of Management
& Budget and Capitol Hill lawmakers.
According to regional sources, the request is being driven
by a recent agency risk assessment that found cancer and a
number of health risks from TCE to be much higher than
previously thought. To be on the safe side, we’re asking that
the [PRPs] do some air quality monitoring," says one
source.
The risk assessment, approved by the agency’s Science
Advisory Board in June, has been contested by the military and
industry scientists who say the review has serious flaws, and
will tighten current cleanup levels by a factor of five. DOD
has estimated that the TCE risk assessment could lead to
billions in cleanup costs.
The industry source declined to say which lawmakers may act
on the TCE risk assessment, but predicts that the Armed
Services committees may act "in the next few months."
(Superfund Report - October
14, 2002)
BACK TO TOP
INDUSTRY PRESSES EPA TO
CLARIFY BROWNFIELDS
LIABILITY PROVISIONS
Less than a year after President Bush signed the new
brownfields liability relief law, industry officials are
raising concerns that its liability provisions are ambiguous
and fail to provide developers and investors with the
necessary legal certainty they need to proceed with their
development plans.
As a result, several industry attorneys and other legal
experts are calling on EPA to clarify unresolved liability
issues, either through guidance, rule makings or even
congressional amendments in order to avoid litigating issues
that courts have been forced to resolve in the past.
But one informed source fears EPA enforcement officials may
be reluctant to quickly issue administrative clarifications on
these liability provisions. The source says agency officials
are considering draft guidance proposals to address some of
the concerns.
Agency officials are still reluctant to reveal their plans,
telling attendees at their recent Brownfields 2002 conference
in Charlotte, NC, only that they are developing guidance and
regulations to resolve some of the issues, although they have
established no timeframes.
Chief among concerns is language in Subtitle B of the law,
which amends the cost recovery provision of CERCLA to provide
liability relief for bona fide prospective purchasers (BFPP)
of brownfields as long as they meet several conditions.
However, sources say the legislative language detailing these
conditions is unclear and must be clarified.
Among the concerns is the requirement that a prospective
purchaser make all "appropriate inquiry" into previous
ownership and uses of a site, and whether that means full
compliance with "American Society for Testing & Materials"
standards, the procedures that direct how initial assessments
of a property should be conducted.
In addition, to attain the BFPP exemptions, a person must
exercise "appropriate care" by taking "reasonable steps" to
stop continuing and future releases from occurring. Sources
say that language is so vague it is scaring off potential
buyers. "Could it mean full cleanup?" asks one source. "I
would hope [it means] less, not more."
The fact that the BFPP exemptions only apply prospectively
raises questions such as whether post-enactment tenant of a
re-enactment owner is precluded from obtaining BFPP status,
sources say.
Industry is also questioning what is considered a release
under the law, noting that CERCLA defines a release as
including leaching, which suggests a BFPP could have to
undertake expensive remediation. "Where do you draw the line?"
asked one official.
(Superfund Report - November
25, 2002)
BACK TO
TOP
DEP GUIDANCE ON SOLID
WASTE FACILITY; HARMS/BENEFITS ANALYSIS
On August 24, 2002, DEP issued important Guidance affecting
the future permit approval process for Soil Waste Facilities.
Key issues are:
- The Department will perform the Environmental Assessment
in Phase l or prior to other technical review for applicable
municipal and residual waste permit applications. If the
Department is aware of technical deficiencies or other
issues that would preclude issuance of the permit, it may
deny the application without conducting an environmental
assessment review.
- This policy applies to applications for municipal and
residual waste disposal or processing permits specified in
25 Pa. Code §271.126 and §287.126 (relating to requirement
for environmental assessment).
- The environmental assessment is designed to ensure that
environmental harms from proposed municipal and residual
waste disposal and processing facilities are mitigated to
the fullest extent possible. If harms are not completely
mitigated, (and for facilities listed in sections 271.127(c)
and 287.127(c)), the benefits of the project to the public
must clearly outweigh the known and potential environmental
harms. The term "clearly" refers to the level of proof
required, not to the amount of the benefits provided in
relation to the remaining harms.
- Five general principles should be considered when
evaluating harms and benefits in environmental assessments.
These are discussed more fully throughout this document.
- Compare the proposed facility or modification to the
conditions that would exist if the project did not move
forward and not to other potential uses of the property or
to other properties.
- Focus on harms and benefits that relate to the proposed
modification when a facility has previously been subject to
an environmental assessment.
- Look at and beyond compliance with statutes and
regulations. Harms may exist even when the law is complied
with, and benefits may arise inherently from the project,
through compliance with the law, or by intention.
- Evaluate harms individually and collectively; evaluate
mitigation measures individually and collectively; and
evaluate benefits individually and collectively because
impact from the facility may be greater than the sum of its
parts.
- Consider the anticipated closing of the facility in
determining the duration of known and potential harms and
benefits. Some harms and benefits will last for a limited
time period and others may last longer even after the
facility closes.
- Environmental Harms and Mitigation
- Under §271.127(b) and 287.127a(b), the applicant’s
environmental assessment shall describe the known and
potential environmental harms of the proposed project. These
include, among other things, adverse impacts relating to
traffic, aesthetics, noise, odor, dust, air quality and
airport safely. The applicant shall provide the Department
with a written mitigation plan that explains how the
applicant plans to mitigate each identified known and
potential environmental harm. If the Department or another
person identifies additional environmental harms, the
applicant must provide a mitigation plan for them, as well.
The environmental assessment must also describe known and
potential environmental harms that are not mitigated.
- Harm from waste vehicles traveling to and from the
facility should be considered. Vehicle-related harm is
considered an environmental harm.
- Something can amount to a harm even if it meets the
requirements of the law.
- An impact can also amount to a harm even if it occurs
away from the host or local municipality.
- Mitigation
- The Department will evaluate each mitigation measure and
will collectively review mitigation measures to ensure that
individually and collectively they adequately protect the
environment and the public health, safety and welfare.
- The applicant must demonstrate that a proposed
mitigation measure will have continuous and long lasting
success.
- A harm is not necessarily considered completely
mitigated simply because the applicant has obtained a permit
or approval from another Bureau of the Department or another
Commonwealth agency.
- Mitigation plans should be approved before a permit is
granted and mitigation measures must be completed before the
harm that is being mitigated occurs.
- Applications that must identify benefits
- Applications for the following types of facilities must
demonstrate that the benefits of the project to the public
clearly outweigh the known and potential environmental
harms: municipal waste landfills, resource recovery
facilities, construction/demolition waste landfills,
noncaptive residual waste landfills, noncaptive residual
waste disposal impoundments and noncaptive residual waste
incinerators.
- Benefits
- An applicant must describe in detail the benefits relied
upon. Section 271 and 287.127(c), (d) explain that the
benefits of the project shall consist of social and economic
benefits that remain after taking into consideration the
known and potential social and economic harms of the project
and shall also consist of the environmental benefits of the
project, if any.
- Benefits may arise inherently from the project (e.g.,
serving a need for disposal or processing capacity), or from
compliance with the law (e.g., paying host municipality
benefit fees and providing recycling drop-off centers), and
benefits may also be intentionally created (e.g., charitable
contributions).
- As a general rule, the Department should compare the
applicant’s proposal to the conditions that would exist if
the project did not move forward in determining whether
something amounts to a benefit, rather than comparing it to
other potential uses of the property or to other properties.
- Social and Economic Harm
- Social and economic harms include, among other things,
reduction in residential property values and interference
with civic pride. Social and economic harms may be
mitigated.
- Balancing
- The regulations require that the benefits of the project
to the public clearly outweigh the known and potential
environmental harms.
The factors that should be considered for each harm and
benefit are the following:
- Duration
- Intensity.
- Frequency.
- Reach, or who will be affected.
- Sensitivity of receptor.
- Known or potential.
- Other relevant factors.
- Once each harm and benefit is evaluated individually
with these factors in mind, it should be evaluated
collectively; harms with harms, and benefits with benefits.
- It must be clear to the Department that the project is
more beneficial than harmful in order for it to proceed to
the Phase ll (technical review) in the application process.
This Guidance will make it more difficult to site new solid
waste facilities in PA. The industry has already challenged
the harms/benefits analysis permitting approach (see the
related article below). Stay tuned on this one.
– Gary Brown
BACK TO
TOP
PA DEP VAPOR INTRUSION
GUIDANCE
PA DEP recently proposed changes to the Act 2 Land
Recycling Vapor Intrusion Guidance. Key highlights are as
follows:
- If a property does not currently have dwellings
(non-residential) and it is possible that future development
will consist of occupied buildings (residential), the deed
acknowledgment requirements shall apply pursuant to Chapter
250.303(g).
- If a site has separate phase liquid (SPL) within 100
feet of the receptor and samples collected at 50 feet from
the receptor indicate no SPL, then further soil gas sampling
would not be required at the receptor. If SPL is found
within 50 feet of the receptor, soil gas would be required
at the receptor.
- A responsible party needs only sample and analyze for
those constituents pertaining to the particular release at
the site that are on the COPIAC list or in Tables 1,2,4,5 in
the Guidance. If the constituent is not listed in the tables
and it is found to be a concern at a particular site, then a
site-specific analysis should be used.
- For soil gas sampling, at least 2 quarterly samples
(spring & winter to account for seasonal variations)
must be collected during evening hours.
- Because sampling VOCs in indoor air can be complicated
by these other sources of VOCs within a dwelling, the
guidance gives an option of taking soil as measurements at a
distance not to exceed 5 feet from the dwelling and compared
to MSCs for soil gas.
- Where OSHA regulations are applicable at the site
including PELs, OSHA-derived screens may be used as an
alternative to the default EPA-derived screen if so
documented.
- Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling
are addressed in a Technical Guidance Manual TGM) revision.
- It is recommended that soil gas samples be collected
periodically (e.g., four quarterly samples over a year). The
MA DEP guidance that is referenced recommends that 1-2 soil
gas sampling probes be installed adjacent to the structure.
Specifics concerning soil gas and indoor air sampling are
addressed in a Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) revision.
- If separate phase liquid (SPL) exists within 100 feet of
a receptor, then sampling in or around the receptor to
attain the Statewide Health Standard is required.
Revisions were made to toxicity values as follows:
-
Chloroform – new EPA RBC
-
Ethylbenzene - new Residential & Non-Residential
MSC and EPA RBC
-
MTBE - new EPA RBC
-
PCE - new Residential and Non-Residential MSC and EPA
RBC
-
TCE - new Residential and Non-Residential MSC and EPA
RBC
-
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane - new EPA RBC
-
1,1 - Dichloroethene - new Residential and
Non-Residential MSC
These changes may require further studies at many PA
Brownfields sites where releases involve petroleum
constituents or solvents. Additionally, for projects in
progress, revisions to Act 2 Notices of Intent to Remediate
may be needed as attainment of vapor intrusion standards is an
"overlay" standard which may not have been considered during
remedial investigation work. RT already has experience using
the vapor intrusion standards at a number of solvent and
petroleum release sites. Call Chris Orzechowski, 610-265-1510
x32 or Gary Brown, 610-265-1510 x34 for more
information.
BACK TO
TOP
PA WATER RESOURCES BILL
PASSES
The House joined the Senate in late fall to send the
bipartisan Water Resources Planning Act to Gov. Schweiker’s
desk ending a more than 20 year effort to adopt water
resources legislation to Pennsylvania.
"For three decades, Pennsylvania has relied on a water plan
that provided little or no help in battling drought
conditions," said Gov. Schweiker. "By their overwhelming
bi-partisan approval, members of the General Assembly have
joined this Administration to ensure that Pennsylvania will no
longer sit back and wait for the next drought to occur."
This legislation will allow the Commonwealth to measure how
much water we’re using and where water resources are in
jeopardy. Those are tools we must have in order to protect one
of our most important natural resources," added Gov.
Schweiker.
The Act requires DEP to develop a new State Water Plan over
the next five years working with both regional and statewide
water resources advisory committees whose membership includes
environmental, local government, technical and water user
interests. The Plan will help answer three basic questions:
How much water do we have? How is the water being used? Where
will the demand for water outstrip the supply?
The Act, contained in House Bill 2302, specifically
preserves the existing authority of DEP and local governments
to regulate water. Governor Schweiker signed the bill before
the end of 2002.
BACK TO
TOP
ACCELERATION OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP AND REUSE
ANNOUNCED BY NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
A new NJ DEP directive identifies and
directs, pursuant to Executive Order No. 38, implementation of
policy and program changes needed to reduce regulatory
uncertainty, to reconcile business and regulatory decision
timeframes, to expand potential reuses of brownfield sites,
and to ensure that owners responsible for contamination no
longer have the option of leaving their sites idle rather than
meet their cleanup obligations. Each of these changes will be
undertaken in consultation with DEP’s partners in brownfield
redevelopment: The Office of Smart Growth and other offices of
the Department of Community Affairs; the Economic Development
Administration and other offices of the Department of
Commerce, the State Planning Commission, the Brownfields Task
Force, municipalities, and other interested
constituencies.
Definitions
The term "brownfield" refers to,
abandoned, idled, or underutilized industrial or commercial
sites where expansion, redevelopment or reuse is complicated
by actual or perceived environmental contamination. Brownfield
sites may also include sites that were once heavily
contaminated and where clean-up has been completed but
redevelopment has not been initiated.
The term "smart growth area" means the
State’s urban, suburban and rural population centers, the
revitalization of which is essential to the prevention of
sprawl and degradation of natural and agricultural resources
and environmental quality. Smart growth areas shall be
identified in coordination with the Office of Smart Growth in
the Department of Community Affairs, the Economic Development
Administration in the Department of Commerce, the State
Planning Commission, municipalities, and interested
constituencies.
Policy
DEP shall implement the
following measures prospectively to encourage the remediation
of reuse of brownfield sites, particularly in smart growth
areas:
Reducing Regulatory
Uncertainty
-
Office of Brownfield Reuse: The
Department shall establish, within the Site Remediation
Program, an Office of Brownfield Reuse. This Office shall
serve as the focal point for the Department’s brownfield
programs, and shall be charged with informing the public and
those interested in brownfield reuse, about these programs.
Furthermore, this Office shall develop and implement new
policies and programs to encourage brownfield remediation
and reuse, and shall set priorities among brownfield sites
that may be appropriate for accelerated cleanup and
redevelopment and shall directly oversee the remediation of
high priority brownfield projects identified by the
Department.
-
Liability Reform: The Department
shall not assert liability for damages or compensatory
restoration against non-liable brownfield developers at
sites at which there is no historical natural resource
injury. This policy shall not diminish responsibility for
restoration actions that are inherent in remedial
activity.
-
No Further Action Letters: The
Department shall issue No Further Action Letters for soils
when remediation of soils at a brownfield property is
complete, but groundwater contamination may remain. The
Department shall also issue No Further Action Letters for
groundwater when a Classification Exception Area has been
established for a brownfield site and natural attenuation
has been approved as the appropriate remedial action.
-
Letting Developers Get to Closing:
The Department shall permit non-liable brownfield developers
to perform as necessary, a well survey, potable well
sampling and analysis , and a determination of groundwater
flow direction, promptly within thirty (30) days after
purchasing a brownfield property, rather than requiring such
developers to perform these activities prior to purchase.
The procedures of current and proposed technical regulations
and manuals shall conform to this policy.
Aligning Regulatory and
Redevelopment Objectives and Timetables
-
Area-wide Brownfield Reuse Program:
The Department shall establish an area-wide brownfield
development program that will enable communities to plan
comprehensively for the remediation and reuse of multiple
brownfield sites. The Department will assist these
communities through coordinated remediation oversight of the
brownfield properties and assist with the coordination of
relevant programs both within the Department and within
other federal and state agencies. The first sites selected
shall be in Camden, Elizabeth, and Trenton, with further
sites to be selected through application to the Department.
This program shall compliment applicable brownfield programs
and incentives.
-
Expanded Use of Market Tools: The
Department shall encourage the use of financial and market
instruments to help manage and allocate financial risks
associated with the uncertainties of complex and long-term
cleanups while providing communities with greater assurance
that clean-up requirements will be met. These may include
the use of sureties, insurance products, and trust fund
mechanisms to: a) manage or reduce risks of uncertainty
concerning potential costs of future remedial decisions; b)
allow brownfield developers of single sites in areas
affected by ubiquitous groundwater contamination to resolve
their groundwater liability through establishment of a
groundwater trust for DEP to use for future and
comprehensive groundwater remediation efforts; c) ensure the
reliability of institutional and engineering controls, and
where appropriate, to reduce the burden on the regulated
communities of maintaining these controls; and; d) otherwise
provide greater certainty to potential developers and
greater assurance to communities that cleanup needs will be
met.
-
"Clean-up Star" Program: The
Department shall develop a "Clean-up Star" program to
perform the role of environmental consultants and to
accelerate brownfield site development. This program shall
include the following elements:
-
a)Following reasonable public notice
of selection criteria and expected qualifications, DEP
will establish a list of pre-qualified consultant
professionals sufficiently qualified to oversee remedial
work with minimal oversight;
-
b) For developers and reasonable
parties willing to select and fund the use of consultant
professionals form the pre-qualified list and provide by
contract with the consultant that the consultant will act
at the direction of the DEP, DEP will make use of the
consultant to expedite remedial analysis, evaluation and
decisions;
-
c) DEP will make this option
available initially at sites presenting relatively low or
moderate risk and less complex clean-up challenges;
-
d) DEP shall develop appropriate
auditing requirements and other safeguards to ensure that
public health and environmental standards are rigorously
enforced, and that pre-qualified professionals who perform
inadequate work are removed from this list
promptly;
-
e) DEP shall convene an advisory
group of interested constituencies and appropriate
representatives of interested labor organizations to
oversee and guide implementation of this
initiative;
-
f) The DEP labor management
committee shall audit the program annually to ensure that
it is not used to reduce or divert the internal staffing
and resources devoted to site remediation;
-
Technical Review Panel: The Department
shall establish a technical review panel, comprised of
senior DEP technical staff, to expedite final clean-up
decisions where remedial action has been delayed by
disagreements between brownfield developers (or other
responsible parties) and DEP case managers on the best
approach to meeting standards and technical requirements to
protect public health and the environment.
Expanding Potential Reuses of
Brownfield Sites
-
Brownfields to Greenfields:
The DEP Office of Brownfield Reuse shall coordinate with the
Green Acres Program, the Division of Fish and Wildlife,
municipal officials, and community and environmental leaders
to identify opportunities to pilot new potential reuses for
Brownfield sites. This effort shall focus particularly on
identifying brownfield sites that may be used for
residential development projects, for local and regional
parks, for recreation areas, for off road vehicle use areas,
and for natural resources restoration. Where bonafide
conservation groups have an interest in stewardship at sites
being restored for these
purposes. DEP shall develop appropriate prospective
purchaser agreements to address potential liability arising
from ownership. The Office of Brownfield reuse shall
identify at least two "brownfield to greenfield" pilots over
the next twelve (12) months.
Promoting Cleanup and
Reuse of "Warehoused" Sites
- Zero Tolerance for
"Warehousing:" Where industrial owners of contaminated
brownfield sites have chosen to "warehouse" the properties
by leaving them abandoned and avoiding or delaying
remediation, the Department shall assist impacted
communities to ensure that a beneficial reuse occurs. Where
appropriate, the Department shall utilize its enforcement
authorities to acquire remediation. Where a municipality
determines to require a warehoused property through
condemnation, the Department shall, in appropriate
circumstances, partner with the municipality by a) allowing
the municipality to assume a leading role in implementing
remedial action; b) by providing appropriate assurances
concerning the scope of liability; and c) by ensuring the
responsible parties pay for the cost of
remediation.
The Assistant Commissioner for
site remediation shall report to the Commissioner on progress
and achievements in implementing this directive on or before
January 1, 2004. This directive is a statement of policy
intended for the fair and efficient administration of the
Department of Environmental Protection and shall not be
construed to create any legal or equitable rights or to
provide the basis for any judicial or administrative
remedy.
RT believes that this Policy
Directive, announced in late November, could help to advance
NJ’s Brownfields Program. Reuse of Brownfield Sites in NJ,
have been hampered by slow approvals and conflicting
objectives. This directive helps give better direction to DEP
staff and those involved in Brownfield Site Redevelopment, on
how to proceed to reuse existing infrastructure and minimize
sprawl. For more information call Tom Brady at
856-467-2276.
BACK TO TOP
CALIFORNIA
CLEAN-AIR CZAR’S SHIFT IS NEW BOOST FOR DIESEL
ENGINES
For three decades, Alan Lloyd has regarded diesel as a
dirty word, synonymous with brown haze and cancer causing
brown soot. It’s a view that he has shared with environmental
activists across the U.S.
But in a striking change of heart that could alter the
kinds of cars and trucks Americans drive, the chairman of the
powerful California’s Air Resources Board is taking a new look
at diesel vehicles. He thinks they are poised to emerge as
part of the solution to a different environmental problem
that’s gaining more attention in the U.S.: global warming.
Coming from the head of California’s pugnacious clean-air
agency, that amounts to environmental apostasy. In the decades
following World War II, California was a main instigator of
the world’s fight against smog, and it has waged that battle
aggressively ever since. CARB’s mandates for pollution cuts in
everything from gas cans, to lawnmowers to 18 wheelers have
been celebrated by environmentalists, criticized by industry
and mimicked by national governments from Washington to
Europe.
Nowhere has CARB been more aggressive than in it’s campaign
to clean-up automobiles - a priority that reflects
California’s position as the nation’s biggest single auto
market; accounting for 12% of U.S. sales. Over the years,
CARB’s edicts have often shaped Environmental Protection
Agency policy and thus the way Detroit designs cars.
But now, Dr. Lloyd is being forced to address the issue of
global warming, and here, diesel engines are the greener
option because they don’t pump out as much so-called
greenhouse gas as gasoline engines do. Diesels still aren’t as
clean as their gasoline-powered cousins in terms of smog
pollutants. But Dr. Lloyd says he has concluded that a new
generation of high-tech diesels developed for Europe bears
little resemblance to the smoke-spewers that Americans
remember from the 1970s and the 1980s. He says he thinks it’s
possible that within five years - tomorrow in the world of
cars and trucks - the auto industry will have bridged the
gap.
"Ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed what I’m telling
you now," says Dr. Lloyd, who in the past several weeks has
begum a series of closed-door meetings with auto-industry
officials to discuss several clean-car technologies. "However,
we have confidence that, given our past history, the
auto-industry will rise to the challenge, and we will have
light-duty diesel in the U.S. and California."
Dr. Lloyd isn’t the only environmental official reassessing
diesel. Earlier this year, EPA tested a new version of a
diesel car from Toyota Motor Corp. that’s under development
for future sale in Europe. The agency concluded that the car
already meets a round of tough new smog standards that are set
to phase in between 2003 and 2007 in the U.S. EPA officials
are scheduled to explain those test results today at an
auto-industry conference in San Diego. And they expect to test
more diesel cars, as well as sport-utility vehicles from other
manufactures before the end of the year.
"Clean diesel sounds like an oxymoron," says Margo Oge,
head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. "It’s not."
Detroit’s Big Three and their European and Japanese rivals
face growing pressure to make their vehicles more fuel
efficient to reduce dependence on Middle East oil and help low
global warming. Though the U.S. says that it won’t ratify the
Kyoto treaty to curb global warming the specter of the
California automotive greenhouse-gas-law - the first in the
nation - and the likelihood of tougher, fuel economy
standards, have the auto industry scrambling to make its
vehicles more efficient. As "light trucks", a category that
includes; SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans, have soared into
popularity in the US, they’ve dragged down the average fuel
economy of the fleet to the lowest level in two decades.
The industry argues that esoteric technologies such as
battery-powered vehicles are impractical and won’t sell. With
increasing frustration and urgency, auto makers are making the
pitch to American regulators that a smarter response to the
country’s fuel consumption can be found in the success of
diesels across the Atlantic.
At the center of the debate is a contraption invented in
the 1890s by the Paris born German scientist Rudolph Diesel.
Unlike the traditional internal-combustion engines, which
generates a spark to ignite fuel compressed with air in a
cylinder, Dr. Diesel’s motor compresses the air inside the
cylinder much more, making the air so hot that it when fuel
hits it, it explodes without need of a spark.
Dr. Diesel’s "compression ignition" process produces more
energy per unit of fuel than the spark method does. But
because its combustion occurs at such high temperatures, the
process also produces more nitrogen oxide, which contributes
to smog. And because the diesel engine mixes the fuel with the
air later than a gasoline engine does, some of the fuel
remains unburned, producing soot particles.
Over the years, diesel’s relative efficiency won supporters
on a continent where energy has traditionally cost more than
in the US. After World War II, many European governments
intentionally began stoking the diesel trend, implementing
fuel taxes, that to this day, make diesel cheaper at the pump
than gasoline. In Germany, a gallon of diesel costs an average
of 3.32 ($3.25), while a gallon of standard unleaded gasoline
costs 4.01.
Dr Lloyd’s reassessment of diesel was sparked by a chat
that he had in July with his boss; Gov. Gray Davis. They were
standing in a log cabin in the Presidio, a San Francisco park
overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge, at a reception held after
Gov. Davis signed the bill to cut automotive greenhouse-gas
emissions.
The California legislation, set to take effect in 2009,
marked a big defeat for auto makers. They saw it as
threatening their ability to keep selling SUVs and pickups in
the state that’s the biggest auto market in the nation. Even
before the measure passed the legislature, industry officials
said that they would challenge it in court.
Gov. Davis’ message to Dr. Lloyd at the Presidio was to try
to head off a blowup over the greenhouse-gas-law. He said, "I
want you to sit down with the auto companies and try to work
something out," Dr. Lloyd recalls. He said " I don’ t want to
put the auto industry out of business. We need to work
together." and I said, "I get the message."
Two weeks later, in early August, Dr. Lloyd headed to
Michigan for the auto industry’s annual get-together in the
resort town of Traverse City. He sat up and took notice when
he heard several presentations on the advances diesel have
made in Europe, particularly one from Gerhard Schmidt, head of
research at Ford Motor Company, and preciously a diesel expert
at Germany’s Bayerische Motoren Werke AG. "Diesel emissions
are not where we want them to be yet, but the trend is
downward," Dr. Lloyd concluded approvingly.
Auto executives who have spoken to Dr. Lloyd recently say
they’re taken aback by his new attitude. Reginald D. Modlin,
director of environmental and energy planning for Chrysler,
reported the news to his home office near Detroit after he
talked recently with the regulator. "We took it back and said,
‘Alan just said something good about diesel!’ " Mr. Modlin
recalls.
The big question is whether the industry will figure out
how to make diesels that meet the new anti-smog rules. Unlike
current standards, the new ones demand that diesels achieve
the same low pollution levels as gasoline cars for nitrogen
oxide, soot particulate and other pollutants. For an average
passenger car, the new rules will require a 77% drop in
nitrogen oxide emissions and an 88% drop on particulate
emissions.
In practice, the standards will be even tougher in
California than elsewhere in the country. Washington’s rules
will let auto makers sell some diesel vehicles that emit more
than the mandated average amount of some pollutants, as long
as the companies offset those dirty vehicles with some extra
clean ones. But the California rules require all vehicles to
meet the average.
Auto executives say that they are hopeful, but not certain,
they’ll be able to meet the anti-smog standards by 2007. Asked
to rate the probability, Ford’s Dr. Schmidt says: "I would
grade it higher than 50%."
Industry researchers are working on two main technologies.
One is a "trap" to catch more soot particles before they are
sent out to the tailpipe. Another is a "catalyst" to collect
nitrogen oxide and then break up most of it into nitrogen and
oxygen that would be released harmlessly into the air. A big
hurdle is that the nitrogen-oxide device won’t work reliably
with today’s US diesel fuel, which contains a lot more sulfur
than European diesel does. New EPA rules lowering the sulfur
content of US diesel to levels the auto industry says are
acceptable aren’t scheduled to take effect until 2006.
Dr. Lloyd has his own incentive to resolve the fight:
guarding California’s ability to keep pushing the
environmental envelope which would be threatened if auto
makers win the legal and political argument that California’s
regulations are to extreme. "There will be some people on the
environmental side who will be unhappy," the CARB chief says.
"I’m getting older - I hope wiser - in some of these cases. I
realize you have limited time as you try to work things out.
And trying to waste energy with hot rhetoric, it’s not worth
the time."
(By Jeffery Ball - The Wall
Street Journal - 10/24/02)
BACK TO
TOP
INSURERS WRITING THEM OFF - INSURERS ARE MOST
LIKELY TO DENY OR CANCEL COVERAGE FOR HOMES - MOLD IS A KEY
ISSUE
When it comes to homeowners insurance, honestly, it seems,
is more likely to result in a policy.
At least that is what sellers and buyers are finding these
days, according to real estate agents. Insurers are cautious
about writing new policies just about everywhere, as if they
are not abandoning states, they are making what they do offer
more costly.
In addition, they are scrutinizing sellers and buyers much
more carefully to check for things that might increase
risk.
It seems the sellers forgot to mention claims they had made
for water related damage on the disclosure forms.
People wanting to live in low and moderate income
neighborhoods in Philadelphia and other older cities have long
had trouble with obtaining comprehensive homeowners insurance
at reasonable prices.
Over the years, owners of houses with flat roofs - as
common as bricks in the city of row-houses - have been
rejected, said Christopher J. Ryan, a broker with the
Prudential Fox & Roach in the Art Museum area. Insurers
have become stricter.
According to Robert P. Hartwig, vice president and chief
economists of the Insurance Information Institute in New York,
it "is the extraordinary number of catastrophes, the high cost
of home repairs, the aging of the U.S. Housing stock and the
emergence of mold claims that are pushing homeowners insurance
rates upward."
Mold claims- virtually non-existent a few years ago - cost
homeowners’ insurers more than $1 billion last year, about
five times the cost in 2000, Hartwig said.
But that is not the whole story. Insurance experts and the
National Association of Realtors suggest that, to compete for
business, companies kept premiums artificially low in the
middle to late 1990s, using high returns from Wall Street
investments to make up the difference.
So, "if", as Hartwig contends, "homeowners’ insurers over
the past decade paid out $1.18 in losses and expenses for
every $1 they earned premiums," such pay-outs didn’t begin
affecting the bottom line until investment income bottomed
out.
In 2001, homeowners insurance paid out $8.9 billion more in
losses and expenses than they received in premiums, Hartwig
said. It was the second worst year on record (1992, and
Hurricane Andrew produced $11.5 billion in losses).
Texas has been particularly hard hit by premium increases
and insurance company pullbacks spurred by the multimillion
dollar Ballard case, in which a jury decided that Farmer’s
Insurance Co. - which with Allstate and State Farm, writes 66
percent of Texas’ policies - had mishandled a family’s claim
for black mold damage to their house.
Farmers was going to pull out of the state entirely, but
reached a compromise with the Texas Insurance Commission late
last month that ended the threat for now.
Including the Ballard decision which is being appealed,
Texas mold claims in 2001 cost insurers more than $850
million, compared with virtually nothing just a few years
earlier, Hartwig said.
The number of mold claims in the state increased by 1,300
percent between the first quarter of 2000 and the fourth
quarter of 2001, while insurer pay-outs through the third
quarter of last year increased 1,200 percent, Hartwig
said.
"Runaway costs associated with mold claims are having an
adverse effect on the availability and affordability of
homeowners insurance in Texas, and increasingly in other
states," Hartwig said.
California, for example, has seen a large spike in
water-damage claims, which often give rise to mold claims.
Water claims accounted for 32 percent of all claims in 2001,
up from 24 percent in 1997.
Over the same period, the average claims surged from $2,537
to $4,730, Hartwig said.
To weed out potentially troublesome customers, insurance
companies have been turning to a resource that has been around
since the late 1980s but was little used until the 1990s. It
is called CLUE, which stands for Comprehensive Loss
Underwriting Exchange. The computerized system, used by about
90 percent of underwriters, is a database of claims made by
consumers.
It is through CLUE that insurers found out about the
oversights on the two disclosure forms in Paoli.
(By Alan J. Heavens - The
Philadelphia Inquirer - 12/15/02)
BACK TO
TOP
OLD SINGLE WALLED PISTON
HYDRAULIC LIFTS AND ELEVATORS BITING THE DUST
At RT Review Press Time, notices were going out from a
number of elevator and lift service companies, that in 2003,
they no longer accept environmental responsibility and lift
maintenance responsibility for hydraulic piston driven
elevators and lifts. The reason for this is an increasing
number of releases from such units, where owners or property
managers hold the service company responsible for the
release.
These types of units suffer from many of the same
deficiencies as underground storage tanks, in that piping
systems can fail catastrophically due to air hammer or other
pressure conditions causing blow offs at elbows, sometimes
releasing the entire contents of the hydraulic reservoir into
soil and/or groundwater in a number of minutes following the
pipeline or fitting breakage. RT has experience at
investigating and managing releases resulting from such
failures at a number of sites, including releases in service
facilities, malls, under office buildings, etc.
New double wall piston systems are available, but
installation is both expensive and time consuming. Drilling
rigs need to be set up in most cases to remove the old sleeves
and pistons, frequently costing $15,000 to $30,000 per unit,
with "downtime" of one to two weeks. Knowledgeable commercial
property managers, who have looked at the situation from a
"life cycle" standpoint, have reached the conclusion that
electric elevators, or upgrading to electric elevators is the
most cost effective long term approach. Further, major
national owners of tire battery and auto centers generally
made the decision to only use "aboveground" electric lifts,
thus avoiding environmental liability concerns altogether,
long ago. For more information on the hydraulic lift situation
call Gary Brown at 800-725-0593 Ext. 34.
BACK TO
TOP
PA SAFE FILL REGULATIONS
MOVE TOWARD FINALIZATION
At RT Review press time, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) proposed Safe fill
Regulations were moving toward finalization. In the closing of
the months of the year 2002;
DEP has also been conducting outreach among various
construction industry trade associations. Although Safe Fill
materials management is a controversial issue, it is also true
that there is a "plus side" for contractors after the
regulations become finalized. Each year there have been a
number of instances of litigation against contractors, who
moved materials they thought were "clean" to other sites, only
to find out that the material was contaminated and could be
considered waste. In other instances, contractors were assured
that the material was "clean", but when it was found out that
the material was contaminated, illegal disposal was alleged to
have taken place.
Although many smart site owners have taken their sites
through the Act 2 Land Recycling Program, finalization of the
Safe Fill regulations will give another tool to earthwork,
utility, and site work contractors to force owners to properly
test materials, well in advance of contracting, so as to avoid
liability, costly fines and large cost increases during the
work at the site. Under the Act 2 program, there are also
advantages where mildly impacted materials can be moved
between Act 2 sites, with DEP approval. One site developer in
Philadelphia saved nearly $200,000 in commercial facility site
work by taking advantage of the Act 2 program. More options
will be available under the Safe Fill regulation permit by
rule provisions to facilitate such reuse of materials in the
future. To take advantage of these options, it essential that
owners plan now to follow the regulation and test sites in
advance, as is already being implemented on many major
projects.
As a reminder, the 1996 Clean Fill Guidance Document issued
by DEP, remains in effect; as was noticed in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin last year, this document can be used in conjunction
with the current residential state-wide health standards. If
you would like a copy of the current limits that have to be
used, or if you would like a summary of the proposed Safe Fill
regulations, which all contractors need to be aware of, please
stop by our web-site at www.rtenv.com, or call us at
800-725-0593.
We will shortly be announcing a final round of training
sessions throughout Pennsylvania, to be held in late February
or early March, to review all final elements of the Safe Fill
regulations, based on the Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking
which is expected to be issued shortly. To make sure that you
receive a copy of the seminar announcement, please call
Valerie Powers at 610-265-1510, ext.24.
BACK TO
TOP
SWITCH TO WET
CLEANING BENEFITS DRY CLEANERS
Dry cleaners in two California
counties who switched from chemical solvents to professional
wet cleaning regard it as a good business decision and would
recommend it to others, according to a new Occidental College
study.
Each of the five owner operated
cleaners in the study - the first to assess the viability of
the switch to wet cleaning by multiple cleaners - reported
that they were able to process the full range of garments they
had once dry cleaned, maintain comparable levels of customer
satisfaction, and cut their operating costs.
The study by Occidental’s
Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center (PPERC),
comes on the eve of a November 1 vote by the board of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) on whether
to become the country’s first air quality agency to require
dry cleaners to phase out the use of perchlororthylene
(perc).
A chemical cleaning solvent used
by 85 percent of all dry cleaners, perc is classified as a
toxic air contaminant and a major groundwater pollutant in
Southern California.
Through these five case studies,
we have learned about the keys to making a quick, smooth, and
successful transition to wet cleaning," said Peter Sinsheimer,
PPERC director and senior author of the report.
Professional wet cleaning is one
of several alternatives to the use of perc. Introduced in
Germany in 1991, it is a non-toxic, water based system that
uses computer controlled washing and drying machines,
biodegradable detergents and specialized finishing equipment
to clean wool, silk, rayon and other delicate fibers often
labeled "dry clean only."
The five cleaners who
participated in the study have anywhere from two to 27 years
previous experience as conventional dry cleaners and all had
serious reservations at first about making the switch to wet
cleaning - concerns that it might increase shrinkage, be more
time consuming, or less effective.
But after making the switch, each
of the five" considered switching a good business decision, a
fact that reflects their confidence in the quality of wet
cleaning and their confidence in the system’s financial
viability," the report states.
The PPERC report is available at:
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/pperc/resources/index.htm
(Environment News
Service - 10/30/02)
BACK TO
TOP
FIBERGLASS GASOLINE TANK SYSTEMS ARE SUSPECT
SOURCES OF MTBE VAPOR RELEASES
New studies of MTBE in California
are suggesting that fiberglass underground storage tank
systems may be the source of MTBE contamination in
groundwater. Studies completed by the University of
California, and new tracer type testing conducted at several
hundred service station sites indicate that vapor releases of
MTBE into soils have occurred at more then 60% of upgraded
service stations. The mechanism for groundwater contamination
is that once the MTBE vapor releases into soils, infiltrating
rainwater interacting with the vapor contaminates the
groundwater.
The studies did not find that
there were many "liquid" releases from underground storage
tank systems. However, there is no current accepted
methodology for testing fiberglass tanks and piping systems
for MTBE vapor permeation. Vapor appears to be leaking near
the tank top/fill areas. Upon urging from Florida
Environmental Officials, EPA officials are now taking a more
serious look at this issue.
The California studies cause one
to question why Stage II vapor recovery systems, were forced
upon the petroleum industry, without testing to determine
whether or not fiberglass piping systems could contain vapors.
(Stage II vapor recovery systems return vapors from fueling to
tanks with a vacuum assist.) It appears that the problem is
that after MTBE gained favor as an oxygenate tank/piping
system vapor releases became critical because MTBE vapors
released into soil simply are not readily biodegrade. It is
very disappointing that so many regulatory and technical
changes were implemented without adequate environmental
engineering studies and materials compatibility testing for a
product, gasoline, which is ubiquitously used throughout the
Country.
Impacts on the
Industry
The California studies have been
driven mainly by the new 0.005 gallon per hour (gph) lead
detection requirement set forth by the State of California
Water Resource Control Board. This new leak detection
requirement is a magnitude of order less than the current
standard set in many states, such as PA and NJ, of 0.05 gph,
but as many in the industry know, California is a forerunner
of environmental regulations, and likely a sign of things to
come.
Unfortunately, very few of the
current tank monitoring systems can achieve this lower leak
detection rate. One method that has shown very promising
results is Tracer Testing. Tracer Testing is not a new
technology, the method has been around for a number of years,
but newer enhanced methods of employment are being developed.
RT has been talking with Tracer Research, one of the few
companies to offer the Enhanced Tracer Testing and currently
approved by the State of California, to keep abreast of these
new technology for our clients. According to Tracer Research,
the technology is still in development and not readily
available on the east coast. However, arrangements can be made
to conduct a test at a site. Currently, the more advanced test
costs about $10,000 to conduct for an average size gasoline
retail station.
The cost of the test is expected
to decrease over the next several years as the technology
improves and become more readily available. For now, RT
recommends the Enhanced Tracer Test be considered for sites
with suspect on-going releases, or for sites where MTBE
releases appear to be a continual problem. If interested,
please contact RT to discuss your specific
situation.
Peter Malik -
Remediation Group Manager
National
Issues
The California studies appear to
show why MTBE releases are being found at so many service
station sites, which is unsettling. It is a significant
environmental engineering failure, that a "rush to judgement"
to solve an air emissions problem resulted in impacts to
groundwater throughout the Country. Lets hope that regulatory
officials who should know how to properly implement major
environmental programs with national significance move quickly
to put proper engineering science behind future regulatory and
legal mandates, and allow time for proper materials and
compatibility testing.
Basic environmental engineering
common sense tells us that California studies have identified
a major problem - underground piping and fillings used for
vapor storage, usually fiberglass pipe, may not be an
appropriate material for vapor containment. Of significance
from a material standpoint is that aboveground piping, usually
of steel or other metal construction is used in refinery and
chemical plant applications. Pipes are usually aboveground so
that any vapor leaks can be tested and repaired.
We at RT are concerned that this
problem has national significance, with added emphasis in
California and New Jersey, where vacuum assisted Stage II
recovery systems were required by regulatory agencies.
Regulatory agencies throughout the nation should move quickly
to determine the extent of this problem, and work through tank
system piping replacement and upgrading needs, where found to
be needed, to avoid further impacts to groundwater at retail
service station locations. The very large volume of gasoline
that we consume should make this a top priority.
Gary R. Brown, P.E. -
President |
