Author: Jeff Carnahan

Remediation of PCE and TCE in Impacted Soil and Groundwater Requires Teamwork and Coordination

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Stephen R. Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics

As Seen in the May 2014 issue of the Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

Cleaning up soil and groundwater contamination from a release of chlorinated solvents, such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) can be a time consuming and complicated process.  That’s why it is so important for you to build the right team to represent you during this process.  That team should understand what your business plans are and your schedule for implementing those plans.  Dealing with environmental contamination is a crossroads of where you have been and where you are going with your business and your future.  It can be an opportunity that forces you to make decisions that you may not have considered, like, “What do I want to do with the business? What about the property?”  If you don’t develop the right team, you could spend a great deal of money addressing the cleanup without having a road map as to what to expect.  If you do not have the right team you could have business interruptions from drilling activities, and face a parade of activities that seem never ending.  With the right team, you don’t need to become an expert on environmental matters – that’s what you have them for. They’re the experts and they communicate with you so you know what’s going on without needing to take chemistry classes. You should be able to focus on your business, while your team focuses on how to move your project through the site closure process.

The most important thing to understand about this concept of building the right team, is that the team must represent the outcome that you desire, within your expectations, and the team that you rely on needs to be strong enough to give you the truth and their best professional opinions, even when the news is bad.  The second most important point is that your team needs to have a good working relationship with one another.  Your consultant and your attorney need to be on the same page as to the Site Closure strategy.  Depending on the business owner’s future plans, site closure strategies might vary significantly.  Your strategy might be to sell your business, but while the property is being remediated, you can’t.  You may own the property and want to refinance it, but most banks are reluctant to loan on the property as long as it is impaired.  You may have no immediate plans to change your business at all and you just want to control the outflow of cash while you focus on growing your business.  These are all different business scenarios that I’ve seen and they all directly affect the site closure strategy. Continue reading “Remediation of PCE and TCE in Impacted Soil and Groundwater Requires Teamwork and Coordination”

RISK BASED SITE CLOSURES SHOULD INCLUDE REMEDIATING THE SOURCE AREA

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Stephen R. Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics & PolicyFind
As Seen in the March 2014 issue of the Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

The environmental remediation industry has been in full swing for the last 35 years, but it has only been in the past few years that the regulatory agencies have come to accept risk-based closures as a practical cleanup strategy. In the recent past, cleanup criteria was established for hundreds of individual chemical constituents for soil, surface water and groundwater. The cleanup criteria was based on the toxicological risks assigned to each of the chemical constituents and then further divided into different land-use scenarios (e.g. residential, commercial, wetlands, etc.)

This process made it easy for people to know what the target cleanup objective would be. That is not to say that there was not frustration over the toxicological science that was used to establish the cleanup criteria, but, because the closure numbers were laid out on a table, it made the discussion with the regulatory agencies black and white.

Continue reading “RISK BASED SITE CLOSURES SHOULD INCLUDE REMEDIATING THE SOURCE AREA”

DERF Goes Broke (Again): Historical Insurance Remains Source of Funding

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

For the second time in 5 years, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Fund (DERF) has run out of funds necessary to keep pace with claims from dry cleaners dealing with perc cleanups. In the meantime, the WDNR has expressed no intention to slow down its enforcement activities.

The language from WDNR Hydrogeologist Theresa Evanson, P.H.’s letter to drycleaners specifically states, “Despite the projected DERF revenue shortfall and anticipated delays in reimbursements to eligible drycleaners, state law still requires that those responsible for contamination or who own contaminated property undertake investigation and cleanup of those properties.” This is an alarming statement to many drycleaners already involved in the DERF and uncertain when they’ll receive DERF aid. It’s even more disturbing if you’re a dry cleaner who’s trying to refinance or sell his business and who was counting on the DERF to be there if due diligence detected any contamination.

Continue reading “DERF Goes Broke (Again): Historical Insurance Remains Source of Funding”

Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination It’s A Matter of Give and Take

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written By: Steve Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics in collaboration with Keith Gaskill, Senior Geochemist, EnviroForensics

As seen in the February 2014 issue of Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

When scientists evaluate how to best cleanup groundwater that has been contaminated with chlorinated solvents, such as perchloroethylene (perc) from a drycleaner or trichloroethene from a manufacturing facility, the option of in-situ treatment is considered.  If the subsurface conditions are favorable, in-situ (or in-place) remediation can have a lot of advantages to other remedial alternatives.

One of the most common in-situ approaches is the use of bioremediation and reductive dechlorination.  The advantages to using in situ bio-remediation or reductive dechlorination technology are that a liquid can be injected into the subsurface using a small drilling rig while there is minimal business interruption. There is no need for an active treatment system involving a trailer or stationary shed with electrical pumps, compressors and treatment tanks.  There is no trenching for conveyance lines and electrical wires.  There are no costs for routine operation and maintenance, electrical power, or monitoring telemetry.  Other advantages to using in situ bio-remediation are that the product is relatively inexpensive, readily available and it is safe and easy to handle.  In-situ treatment is particularly favorable when remediating a contaminated groundwater plume that has migrated away from the Site where the release occurred.

Continue reading “Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination It’s A Matter of Give and Take”

H.B. 1241 would cost jobs, livelihoods, business owners tell Senate

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

NEWS

Date:                   February 19, 2014

Contact:

Guy Johnson (317) 503-4605, guy-pr@sbcglobal.net

Justin Gifford (317) 972-7870, 812-371-9189 (mobile),  jgifford@enviroforensics.com

H.B. 1241 would cost jobs, livelihoods, business owners tell Senate

A coalition of Indiana business owners is asking state senators to defeat a House-passed measure that would deny insurance coverage for cleaning up pollution.

The business owners say the proposed bill (H.B. 1241) would harm small and large employers alike because it would prevent business owners from being able to use their commercial general liability policies, as written, to cover pollution damages and remediation costs. The bill draft allows an insurer to have a free hand not to cover well-known pollutants or to define pollution so vaguely as to avoid paying for clean up.

The business owners sent letters to state senators in their district and will testify against the measure at 10 a.m. Thursday (Feb. 27) before the Senate Insurance Committee. (Statehouse room 130.)

In his letter to state senators hearing the bill, and in testimony prepared for the hearing, Steve Schmitt, who owns Don’s Clayton’s Fine Drycleaning in Evansville and Newburgh, says he has owned the business started by his father for 40 years and uses modern, approved chemicals that do not cause pollution. But insurance has helped him pay for cleaning up old chemicals. “This legislation in not retroactive, but it will put pressure on us in the future. Without the help of my insurance policy, I would have had to close my business and my 106 employees would have lost their jobs. I expect to pay for business insurance, but I also expect to buy reasonable coverage that I understand at an affordable cost. HB 1241 takes that option off the table.”

Another business owner testifying before the committee says his business doesn’t use chemicals, but he lives with the legacy of pollution left from a printer and battery manufacturer who previously owned his building.

Wes Hawk, owners of Office Furniture Mart in downtown Indianapolis, says, “I don’t have an ax to grind with insurance companies. They’ve treated me fairly. But this legislation just cannot stand. Similar legislation has been tried before and has lost on its merits when wiser heads prevailed.”

Hawk says he is in the process of cleaning pollution from underneath the building he has owned since 1995. The building passed environmental inspection then, but newer technology has uncovered pollution left behind by two previous owners.

Hawk says, “You can find stuff like this in the ground almost anywhere downtown or in an industrial setting. If current owners can’t be insured — something that H.B. 1241 would virtually guarantee — how is this stuff going to be cleaned up?”

The Indiana Supreme Court has previously reviewed the contracts that the legislation would allow and held that the exclusions were ambiguous and unenforceable.

The Indiana Legislative Services Agency has said the proposed bill would increase the workload of the Indiana Department of Insurance as it pursues administrative sanctions against insurance companies that fail to define their policies adequately to customers.

H.B. 1241 was written by Rep. Martin Carbaugh (R-District 81) and passed the House 57-36. It was sent to the Senate where it is sponsored by Sen. Travis Holdman (R – District 19).

Steven Meyer, assistant administrator of Brownfield Redevelopment for the City of Indianapolis says, “Indianapolis has a long history of successfully using insurance proceeds to revitalize properties and create jobs. This legislation puts at risk our ability to address the environmental contamination at sites across the city.”

 

Vapor Intrusion – A Concern, but an Easy Fix

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Stephen R. Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics & PolicyFind

As Seen in the January 2014 issue of the Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

Those of you who have read my past articles, have heard me speak, or have ever looked at EnviroForensics’ website, know that we specialize in helping dry cleaners work through the regulatory and insurance maze of investigating and remediating soil and groundwater impacts caused by the release of percholoroethene (PCE).  The EnviroForensics team takes pride in helping to solve environmental problems for the dry cleaning industry; and over the past 18 years, we have helped more than 400 dry cleaners.

So much has changed since I started working with dry cleaners.  The laws and regulations enforced by the regulatory agencies, the cleanup technology, and the perceived human health exposure of vapors, known as vapor intrusion, are continually changing and evolving.   It seems that the only constants are that dry cleaners are targets and continue to be blamed when PCE is found in soil and groundwater. PCE is considered a risk to public health, contaminated soil and groundwater makes property transactions difficult to complete, and cleaning up PCE in soil and groundwater is expensive.  Oh, and old CGL insurance policies continue to be one of the saving graces for dry cleaners when faced with the daunting reality that they have been named as a party responsible for PCE contamination. Continue reading “Vapor Intrusion – A Concern, but an Easy Fix”

Increased Attention To Dry Cleaners Likely Under New Property Due Diligence Requirements

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Steve Henshaw, President & CEO, EnviroForensics

As seen in the December 2013 issue of Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

On November 6, 2013 ASTM E1527-13 became official as the guidance standard used by environmental consultants for conducting Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments.  Environmental Site Assessments are required by banks and lenders before those entities loan money on real estate holdings and they are designed to identify potential or existing environmental liabilities associated with the subject properties.  The reason that this is important to dry cleaners is that the new guidance puts greater emphasis on assessing the potential impacts from vapor intrusion and vapor migration on the property.  In fact, the definition of a “release” within the guidance has been changed to include contamination in the subsurface vapor phase, in addition to the soil and groundwater.

Continue reading “Increased Attention To Dry Cleaners Likely Under New Property Due Diligence Requirements”

DEALING WITH THE PERCEPTION OF RISK; THE VALUE OF HAVING AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Stephen Henshaw, P.G., President & CEO, EnviroForensics
As seen in the October 2013 issue of Cleaner and Launderer

Over the years, environmental regulations have gotten more and more restrictive.  The permissible levels of chlorinated solvents in groundwater, soil and indoor air continue to be pushed lower.  While the acceptable level of PCE in indoor air was actually increased by the federal government, the acceptable level of TCE (a breakdown product of PCE) was drastically lowered, which has resulted in an increase of Sites posing a public health risk.  It is the vapors, which contain volatile organic compounds from releases of cleaning solvents or gasoline, which is posing the greatest risk to people living or working near the Sites where the contaminants were released.  The regulatory requirement to evaluate the fate and distribution of these contaminated vapors into homes, apartments, schools, and businesses is raising the publics concern and could create the perception of risk and with those perceptions associated concerns and fears of health effects.

Continue reading “DEALING WITH THE PERCEPTION OF RISK; THE VALUE OF HAVING AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN”

Cradle to Grave Responsibility And Long-Tail Liability

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Stephen Henshaw, P.G., President & CEO, EnviroForensics
As seen in the September 2013 issue of Cleaner & Launderer

Most people that purchase, handle and manage cleaning solvents, are familiar with the terms “Cradle to Grave Responsibility” and “Long-Tail Liabilities”.  Cradle to Grave responsibility has been used to describe the fact that any person that generates a waste material that is classified, as a hazardous substance is responsible for that waste from the time it is generated until pretty much the end of time.  The Cradle to Grave system is a provision with legislation known as the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which passed in 1976 and focuses to a large degree on the management of hazardous waste. There is no time limit or expiration date that will release a generator from this long-term management responsibility.  This is why the management of hazardous substances is termed Long-Tail Liability.

Everyone knows that when a site is contaminated, the person that caused the contamination is responsible for cleaning it up.  But what happens when the party that operated the site is no longer around, either financially or administratively.  Who then pays for the cleanup? Continue reading “Cradle to Grave Responsibility And Long-Tail Liability”

VAPOR INTRUSION CAN POSE SIGNIFICANT LIABILITIES; TAKE STEPS TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Steve Henshaw, PG, President & CEO, EnviroForensics

As seen in the August 2013 issue of Cleaner & Launderer

Download PDF

The field of vapor intrusion is far from being considered a sound science.  I want to tell you this because the stakes are very high when it comes to potential risks to human health from vapors comprised of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  The emerging field of vapor intrusion is not only rapidly evolving and the risk levels are continuing to shift and change, but also the potential liabilities associated with vapor intrusion exposure can be very expensive and could damage a company’s reputation.  When it comes to vapor intrusion exposure issues, you and your team of scientists and lawyers need to be in front of the problem, proactively dealing with results and developing a communication plan and strategy of ensuring that appropriate steps are being taken to protect people from risk and harm. Continue reading “VAPOR INTRUSION CAN POSE SIGNIFICANT LIABILITIES; TAKE STEPS TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES”