Author: Jeff Carnahan

Background Sources in Disguise

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

As we’ve mentioned in past blogs, one of the scariest ways for a contaminant to get into your home or business, is in the form of vapor, through the cracks in your foundation and floors (Vapor Intrusion). EnviroForensics conducts a multitude of indoor air vapor intrusion assessments each year at structures located near or over a source of subsurface contamination. These assessments help us figure out if the volatile chemical is finding its way into the structure. But they can tricky, since the same chemicals which potentially reside beneath the surface are also commonly found in household products like hobby glues, degreasers, automotive products, etc. (examples pictured below) These materials are called “background sources” and their presence can be problematic in assessing which indoor air impacts are truly coming from the subsurface rather than products already present within the building.  EnviroForensics conducts extensive background assessments and documents the materials present prior to completing indoor air testing in order to account for any materials which may contain the chemicals being investigated. These materials aren’t always present, but when they are, it is important to remove them prior to sampling in order to avoid an inconclusive data set which is not truly a representation of conditions caused by contaminant vapors entering the breathing air from the subsurface.  A traditional background assessment consists of combing through common household materials, and reading through the lists of active ingredients to confirm the lack or presence of suspect chemical compounds. But can we always trust the fine print of these products? Recently, EnviroForensics discovered that this is not the case.

During recent vapor intrusion testing activities, EnviroForensics identified a background source of tetrachloroethene (PCE) within a glue product which did not list PCE as an ingredient (I know, very tricky). This was made possible due to the fact that EnviroForensics has some of the finest professionals and modern testing equipment to identify and unmask these background sources in disguise. EnviroForensics has an in-house certified analyst trained to operate the Hazardous Air Pollutants on Site (HAPSITE) gas chromatograph/ mass spectrometer (GC/MS) instrument which analyzes air in real-time and provides laboratory-quality analytical results. Utilizing the HAPSITE instrument in the field facilitated the identification of a material containing PCE which did not have the compound listed on its label. With EnviroForensics’ efforts and the use of sophisticated testing instruments, the material was removed from the property prior to completing an indoor air assessment, therefore avoiding the collection of an inconclusive data set which would have hindered progress and over-estimated the health risk to occupants from vapor intrusion.

 

Common Background Sources That May be in Your Home

 

New Remediation Method “Mixes” Innovation with Savings

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

When it comes to cleaning up a contaminated site, there aren’t that many methods simpler than just removing the soil. Unfortunately, that soil has to go somewhere, and that’s where excavation can get pricy. Moving PCE contaminated soil to a specialized or “hazardous” landfill can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. EnviroForensics’ teams are employing some new technology out in the field that is expected to take a few zeroes off the bottom line. With the implementation of a few relatively new chemicals, soil that was once considered hazardous can be brought to a regular non-hazardous landfill.

Here’s how it works. Field engineers add a mixture of water and a chemical called PersulfOx (developed by Regenesis), a white powdery substance that actually destroys volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like PCE and TCE, to the impacted soil. The PersulfOx reduces the concentration of the VOCs in the soil.  A few weeks later the EnviroForensics team returns to the site, tests the soil, then conducts another round of “Soil Mixing” as needed.  Once the soil testing reaches safe levels (of PCE and/or TCE), it can be transported to a non-hazardous regular landfill. Quicklime is then mixed in to dry out the soil for transportation and to increase and buffer the soil pH.

The cost difference between sending the contaminated soil to a hazardous landfill (also known as a Subtitle D landfill) and a “regular” non-hazardous landfill is staggering. What typically costs upwards of $500 per ton, now costs just $70 a ton, when you treat the soil, and transport it to a regular landfill. The savings on this part of the cleanup alone should be enough to keep this as a viable remediation method moving forward.

Appellate Court Ruling Favors Insured on Excess Policy Issue

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

The New York Appellate Court recently advised the Delaware Supreme Court on the complexities of New York insurance law on coverage allocation. In the matter of Viking Pump, Inc. & Warren Pumps LLC v. TIG, et al, TIG argued that it was only obligated to indemnify Viking Pump for the time they insured the company (Pro Rata), while Viking Pump sought coverage for the entirety of its defense (All Sums). The Delaware Supreme Court asked the New York Appellate Court to interpret its own laws in order to determine the answers to these questions: If excess insurance policies exist that have non-cumulation provisions and follow the form of underlying policies, which allocation method is appropriate? “All sums[1]” or “pro-rata[2]?” Is vertical or horizontal exhaustion[3] necessary in order to trigger this excess coverage? [AM4]

If an excess policy ‘follows form,’ it adopts, word-for-word, provisions from the underlying (primary and umbrella) coverage. The non-cumulation provision says, in effect: if your injury spans more than one policy period and an insurer other than us insured you for that period, then the amount we indemnify you for is going to be reduced by the amount your other insurer pays for the injury that occurred during their policy period. 

There was agreement from the court of Chancery all the way to the New York Appellate Court: in this case, the non-cumulation provisions in the underlying policies were clear in their intent to allocate using an all-sums method (which Liberty Mutual, the underlying insurer, customarily used).

TIG adopted the policy part-and-parcel by following form, but wanted a pro-rata approach – a legal fiction that takes an injury that occurred/continued to occur over multiple policy periods and treats it as if a discrete injury occurred in the separate policy periods. Pro-rata exists in a universe where, unless there was overlapping coverage, the injured party/insured can only recover under one policy at a time.

Non-cumulation policies, on the other hand, absolutely expect that more than one policy may be indemnifying the insured and, as a result, nullify a pro-rata approach. (A precept of contractual interpretation is that you do not interpret a provision of a contract in such a way as to nullify another provision in the contract rendering it redundant or insignificant; it’s called surplusage). In addition, several of the excess policies contained ‘continuing coverage’ provisions which expressly extend coverage past the policy period which, again, is completely incompatible with a pro-rata approach. The New York Appellate Court found for Viking Pump on the allocation question.

That left the second question to be answered. What kind of exhaustion applies to the excess policies: do the insureds need to exhaust all underlying coverage prior to triggering any excess policies (horizontal) or can the insureds simply exhaust one primary policy in order to trigger the overlying policy (vertical)? The court found that, mainly due to the fact that the excess policies’ form-following and specific identification of the underlying policies to which they provided excess coverage for meant that vertical exhaustion was the proper approach.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] In “all sums,” instances one insurer may be responsible for paying “all sums” related to the defense of the policyholder. After (or perhaps during) the claim, the insurer may pursue other carriers for equitable contribution.
[2] In “pro rata,” instances, an individual carrier is only responsible for paying those sums that occur while the carrier was ‘on the risk’ or insuring the policyholder while a long-tail claim (like an environmental spill) is occurring.
[3] In vertical exhaustion, excess or umbrella coverage is triggered as soon as the policy underneath it is exhausted. In horizontal exhaustion, all primary policies must be exhausted before the first excess or umbrella policy is triggered.
 

Soil Vapor Extraction Without all the Fuss

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

An environmental cleanup can be quite the undertaking, and at times, can get a little noisy. This could be troublesome if the job is in an already existing residential or business area. You don’t want to bother anyone, but you also have to clean up the hazardous chemical. Sometimes the best options for a Site remediation just don’t jibe with the surrounding area. That’s where EnviroForensics’ experience with custom remedial engineering comes into play.

A common method for pulling potentially harmful chemicals out of impacted soil is the implementation of a soil vapor extraction system (SVE). This specially designed contraption induces airflow through the pore spaces in the impacted soils, converting volatile contaminants into the vapor phase, and removing them from the soil.

Unfortunately, many “off-the-shelf” systems of this type are large, bulky, and loud, which mPic_SVE_Blogay cause complaints from nearby residents or interfere with business operations at the cleanup site.

EnviroForensics recently designed, assembled, and began operation of a custom SVE system (pictured above) at a site contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from historical dry cleaning activities. The assignment was complex to say the least; the contamination had reached the sandstone bedrock, deep below ground surface (SVE systems aren’t normally used in bedrock applications), and the client needed a system that would be quiet, compact, and cost-effective.

EnviroForensics’ expert engineers rose to these challenges and designed a custom SVE system that not only fit within a small portion of an un-used garage in the client’s building, but also was quiet enough to hold casual conversations within feet of the operating blowers. The system is also fully automated, which allows for remote performance evaluation and adjustment without mobilizing to the Site, resulting in significant cost savings to the project.  The system built by EnviroForensics is robust yet adaptable, thereby allowing it to provide maximum contaminant removal within all portions of the variable subsurface geologic materials. The net result is an effective bedrock remediation system that is hardly noticeable to employees or the surrounding community. Within the weeks since the system was turned on, hundreds of pounds of PCE have been removed from the underlying bedrock. The regulators, the community, and our client are pleased.

Circuit Court Issues Big Victory for the Insured

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

A groundbreaking ruling in the environmental cleanup industry. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that effectively broadens the scope of protection of a policy holder by triggering an insurance company’s “duty to defend” more quickly for policy-holders living in the Ninth Circuit. In short, if the Environmental Protection Agency issues a request for information (a “104(e) letter”) regarding the release of a hazardous chemical, a property owner can go to his or her insurance companies and request that his or her insurer provide financial coverage for any legal defense needed during the regulatory process.

The facts in Ash Grove Cement Company v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involved the EPA issuing a 104(e) letter to Ash Grove regarding contamination at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, which is a 12-mile sediment cleanup project along the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon. Liberty Mutual denied coverage on the basis that their policy only covered “suits” and “property damage.” Luckily for Ash Grove, the circuit court found that a 104(e) letter or any other communication from the EPA that could result in a policy-holder being identified as a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) order is considered a “suit,” under the theory that the information provided to the EPA by the insured could place them under some kind of liability. The court held that the imminent need for money to cover defense costs in court makes the letter the “functional equivalent” of a “suit.”

Moving forward, this decision is likely to have an impact in the way Superfund investigations and clean-ups are funded, particularly in the early stages. Insureds who may be Potentially Responsible Parties under CERCLA will be more inclined to come forward with information and historic records about their site, since it will be in their best interests, both environmentally and financially. They’ll also have more institutional control throughout the process, deciding costs of the investigation and cleanup with the EPA overseeing the project. The alternative is less forgiving to the insured: the EPA takes action, sends in its own crews to clean things up, and then files a lawsuit against the responsible party to recover the funds used on said cleanup. Although this decision only applies to the Ninth Circuit, it sets a strong legal precedent for courts in other circuits that have not yet decided this issue.

EPA Releases Drinking Water Regulations on PFOA & PFOS

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established health advisories for two chemical contaminants called PFOA and PFOS based on the agency’s assessment of the latest peer-reviewed science. These advisories will provide the most up-to-date information on the health risks of these chemicals and aid drinking water system operators and state, tribal and local officials in making determinations as to the appropriate steps needed to address PFOA and PFOS in their communities. EPA’s assessment indicates that drinking water with individual or combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS below 70 parts per trillion (0.07 micrograms per liter ug/L) is not expected to result in adverse health effects over a lifetime of exposure.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are manmade chemicals that are part of a larger family of chemicals called perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). PFOA and PFOS have been used in a number of consumer products, including; carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, leather, paper packaging for food, and as coating additives for waterproofing or stain and grease-resistant agents used in cookware and other materials. They are also used for firefighting at air-fields and in a number of industrial processes.

Exposure to high levels of PFOA and PFOS may result in developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breastfed infants, cancer, liver effects, immune effects, and thyroid effects.

For most people, their source of exposure to PFOA and PFOS has come through food and consumer products. But drinking water can be an additional source of exposure in the small percentage of communities where these chemicals have contaminated water supplies.  This is typically a localized issue associated with a specific facility, such as a manufacturing plant or airfield that made or used these chemicals.

Even though releases of these chemicals to surface water and groundwater is expected to decline given the limited ongoing uses of PFOA and PFOS-related chemicals, risk of exposure is still possible due to their legacy uses, existing and legacy uses on imported goods, and degradation of precursors. Additionally, PFOA and PFOS are very persistent in the environment and in the human body. They have been detected in water, wildlife, and humans worldwide. EnviroForensics employs technical experts in the field of environmental risk assessment and can aid in investigating, remediating, and conducting human health risk assessments to limit exposure to these chemical contaminants, as well as other environmental contaminants.

The Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS, and supporting documents can be found at the following link:

https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos

We Work to Close: A Response to Channel 13’s Investigation on Voluntary Remediation Program

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

The water crisis in Flint, Michigan has sparked concerns over the cleanliness drinking water in Indianapolis and in every city and town across America. It seems like everyday we are learning about new sites where environmental contamination has been found presenting health risks to residences in rural and urban neighborhoods.  Here at EnviroForensics we applaud the media for highlighting this problem and want to clear up one major misconception regarding how fast or slow environmental investigations and remediations take place.  While many, many sites take an unnecessarily long time to get through the investigation and remediation process, we pride ourselves in pushing projects to site closure.  In fact, we have closed more solvent contaminated sites than any company in the Midwest,  because we know that it is in our clients’ best interest as well as the communities’ best interest.

Recently, Channel 13 in Indianapolis, reported on a series of potentially dangerous contamination Sites across the state that have gone unchecked for years. These chemicals can get into the drinking water or seep into homes in the form of vapor, creating a risk to residents.

While it is the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s responsibility to ensure that the public is being protected from the contamination at these sites, some businesses find loopholes in the system that allow the cleanup process to drag on and on for years.

In the report by Channel 13, they found hundreds of businesses that have been protected from lawsuits by being in IDEM’s Voluntary Remediation Program while performing little to no cleanup for years and in some instances decades.

Our goal at EnviroForensics is to make sure a chemical contamination never becomes a serious risk to public health. We pride ourselves in working with our clients to cleanup environmental contamination in a timely manner so that the environment is cleaner and their property values can be restored.  At EnviroForensics we live by our moniker that we Turn Environmental Liabilities Into Assets and this can only be achieved by remediating contaminated sites.

Major Contamination Site in Indy Could get Federal Superfund Designation

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Citizens, business owners and community leaders of the Riverside neighborhood met with the US EPA, Citizens Energy Group and environmental professionals on May 24, 2016 at the Riverside Community Center to discuss the possibility of adding a group of city drinking water wells to the National Priority List (NPL) as a Superfund site.

While the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) was noticeably absent from the meeting, citizens expressed their concern that designating this area a Superfund site would tarnish the neighborhoods reputation, hindering economic development and diminishing the hard work that their community has conducted in turning the area around.

Last April, the EPA announced a proposal to add the Riverside Groundwater Contamination site in Indianapolis to the NPL.  The NPL is EPA’s list of Superfund sites.  Superfund is a federal program that investigates and cleans up the most complex or uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country.

The problem stems from groundwater samples collected from the city’s municipal drinking water wells that showed elevated levels of vinyl chloride and 1,2-dichloroethylene, chemicals found as a breakdown products of solvents commonly used by dry cleaners, small businesses, and manufacturers.  Representatives from Citizens Energy, manager of the city water supply, repeatedly stated that the drinking water was safe to drink and that water from the contaminated wells was mixed with other city water and treated before being supplied to their customers.

While many current and former businesses in the area have been identified as causing groundwater contamination, many more locations will likely come under scrutiny as being potentially responsible for the groundwater contamination of the city’s wells.  But, because the drinking water wells draw groundwater from two distinct water-bearing units nearly 100 feet below the land surface, it is very costly to collect soil and groundwater samples necessary to accurately identify the contaminant sources. In the past IDEM officials have expressed their lack of manpower and financial resources to take on this investigation and presumably asked EPA to assist them in those efforts.

The meeting was intended for EPA to educate the public on the process it uses to evaluate, score and rank sites when determining whether or not to actually list and designate a site as Superfund-eligible.   Frustration and surprise were commonly expressed by the general public and community leaders as they learned for the first time that EPA’s 60-day comment period started on April 6, leaving less than two weeks for them to provide their concerns in writing to the federal Agency.  Peggy Gamlin, who organized the meeting said, “For years this area has been redlined (a term used when banks, insurance companies and even supermarkets deny services directly or by raising prices) and now we are up against a Superfund designation that will only damage our efforts.” “At a minimum” she said, “could we at least extend the comment period?”

State Senator Greg Taylor was present and expressed frustration with the EPA for their lack of engaging the community in the process stating, “You’ve been studying this problem for years and no one has ever contacted my office to discuss this serious issue.  To my knowledge this is the first public meeting that has been held to discuss the merits of this Superfund designation and we are told comments are required in a little more than a week.”

Stephen Henshaw, president of EnviroForensics also spoke at the meeting. Henshaw agrees that listing this area as a Superfund site could give it a stigma that could adversely effect the growth plans for the area, but thinks EPA could assist the community by issuing information demands to the businesses that IDEM has identified as potentially causing or contributing to the groundwater contamination.  For several years, IDEM has been compiling a list of former dry cleaners and launderers and has found over 167 former and current dry cleaners within the wellhead protection area of Riverside and White River municipal wells.

Henshaw argues that while the groundwater levels observed in the Riverside municipal well field are below the allowed drinking water levels, such levels pose a risk and attention needs to be given to identify and mitigate sources of contamination that are found to be contaminating or threatening the city’s drinking water supply.  While acknowledging that cleaning up contamination from old manufacturing sites, dry cleaners, and other businesses is extremely costly, he stated, “While it’s true that groundwater contamination may have been caused by accidental spills and releases of dry cleaning solvents, as well as solvents used to clean machine parts in past decades, businesses — even those now defunct — can use their old insurance policies, policies written 40 and 50 years ago, to fund the costs of investigation and remediation.” Henshaw also contends that more focus needs to be given to those sites already in IDEM’s cleanup programs citing an unnecessarily long and drawn out process between consultants and IDEM in getting sites remediated.  He said that EnviroForensics routinely finds old insurance policies to assist past and current business owners address their environmental liabilities stating, “Insurance policies don’t expire and can still be used to protect the policyholder facing regulatory enforcement even if the company that caused the contamination is out of business.”

For more information on the Riverside Groundwater Contamination site, contact Nuria Muñiz, NPL Coordinator, 312-886-4439, muniz.nuria@epa.gov.  The EPA during the 60-day comment period currently expires on June 6.

EnviroForensics Volunteers Put Muncie Minds at Ease About Lead

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

EnviroForensics said “yes” to a request for volunteers from the Hoosier Environmental Council.

Their assignment; find traces of lead poisoning in the ground at Muncie parks, playgrounds and community gardens.

Vick Webb, our corporate health and safety manager, and Nick Hill, senior project manager, spent a day in Muncie working alongside the HEC ‘s environmental health and water policy director Dr. Indra Frank (a frequent collaborator) and a Muncie team headed by Jenni Marsh, president and CEO of the United Way of Muncie and Delaware County.

Marsh says the effort was spurred by worries about detrimental effects of high levels of lead in the blood of children; levels that may harm brain development in pre-kindergarten children, during the most important time of brain development.

Marsh says. “We discovered: In 2014, 7% of the children tested in Delaware County had elevated BLLs. The national average of children with elevated BLL of 5 micrograms per deciliter is 2.6%. Our community’s average was more than twice that amount.”

The team fanned out to five Muncie parks and playgrounds, visiting every zip code in Delaware County’s Center Township. Using a hand auger and hand trowel, Vick and Nick extracted samples from the ground at three different locations in each park. The samples ranged from 2 inches to 8 inches deep. They were added to the team’s total and evaluated by HEC consultant Mike Ketterer of the Metropolitan State University of Denver’s chemistry department.

Ketterer received 54 soil samples from 18 specific sites. He carefully sub-sampled, oven-dried, ground and dissolved with acids. The lead was measured by flame atomic absorption spectrometry.

Ketterer says, “The majority of soil samples tested low for lead content. We did not find levels detrimental to public health.”

More testing lies ahead, but these preliminary results were “very good news,” says Dr. Frank of the HEC.

“Given the soil contamination that has been seen in other cities with similar industries, it was a tremendous relief to find only a limited number of samples with elevated lead, and those elevations were still within the EPA’s recommended limit for a playground of 400 parts per million.”

Dr. Frank adds, “For people in the center of Muncie and southern neighborhoods, I would recommend testing soil in vegetable gardens, since a few samples exceeded the limit for gardening of 200 ppm.”

The United Way’s Marsh says, “I must admit I am very surprised at how low the lead levels were. I thought we would see significantly higher parts-per-million because of their proximity to industry and lead contaminators.”

Marsh says the local committee — comprised of the United Way, City of Muncie, Ready by 5 and the Muncie Action Plan will discuss the next steps for reducing lead levels in Muncie.

And, she thanks everyone who volunteered their time and efforts. Specifically, she told Vick and Nick, “What a cool company you work for—that allows that kind of service—and what cool people you all are for taking EnviroForensics up on this opportunity!”

Marsh adds, “Each of you have worked on behalf of Delaware County’s children.”

 

EnviroForensics Develops Cost-Effective Remediation Plan for Former Dry Cleaner Client

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

EnviroForensics is at work remediating Crest Cleaners, a former dry cleaner in Mooresville, Indiana. Located within a mixed-use commercial and residential area, the Site is now undergoing cleanup due to historical dry cleaning activities that resulted in soil impacts onsite and groundwater impact that has migrated under buildings in the residential area.

EnviroForensics has completed excavation and removal of heavily impacted soils. Our team of environmental experts has utilized enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) along with in-situ chemical reduction (ISCR) to address contamination on the property. These techniques have been carefully chosen as the most cost-effective options to clean up the Site’s contamination. ISCR immediately eliminates groundwater impact, and over a two or three year time period, ERD utilizes naturally-occurring microbes to break down contaminants. Injections have been done at over 92 different locations. The goal is that after three years of injection and monitoring, the Site will be eligible for regulatory closure.

While ERD and ISCR are effective methods of reducing contamination on a property, methane is a by-product of these processes and can accumulate in nearby buildings. However, EnviroForensics is at the forefront of the industry in studying and addressing this issue. Recently, our Vapor Intrusion team presented a study entitled “The Production and Management of Methane in Soil Gas during Remediation at Drycleaner Sites” at the annual Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Foundation’s Conference on Soil, Water, Energy and Air. The study has also been approved for presentation at the Tenth International Battelle Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, which will be held May 23-26 in Palm Springs, California.

At EnviroForensics, we work to ensure that contamination at your site of business is cleaned up in the most cost-effective and accurate way possible. Not only are our environmental professionals some of the best in the industry; we also have a team of insurance archeologists who are skilled in locating and utilizing historical insurance policies to help fund the costs of environmental investigation and remediation—meaning our clients pay little to nothing out-of-pocket.

Dealing with contamination on your property doesn’t have to be a burdensome and costly experience. Let EnviroForensics’ expert scientists and engineers develop the best remediation strategy for your unique situation.