Category: Drycleaners

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”

Long-Tail Environmental Liabilities; That’s Why You Bought Insurance

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

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

 

Last month over 200 active or former dry cleaners received a letter from the State of California informing them that if they would pay money to the State, the State would settle a claim against them for contributing to environmental contamination at a long closed out solvent recycling and waste management facility.  The drycleaners followed the law and sent waste solvent and filters to a hazardous waste management facility that was licensed by the State of California to handle such material.  As part of having a license to operate, this facility was required to have a cleanup bond to pay for the removal of stored material and the cleanup of environmental contamination at the site.   Should they shut down and walk away before such cleanup activities were completed.

While this particular situation seems unfair, I assure you that it is not uncommon.   Whether it is the government, or a neighboring property owner, or a new owner of the site, environmental liability does not go away.  Environmental contamination can lay dormant for years, even decades, but at some point, more often than not, it gets cleaned up and somebody has to pay for it.  And when somebody has to pay, even if that somebody is the government, those that owned or operated the facility that generated, transported or disposed of the hazardous waste, contributing to that contamination, can be held liable for the cost of investigation and cleanup.

Today I want to tell you once again about long-tail liabilities and how they won’t go away.  In fact, like taxes, the environmental statutes were written so that they would not be discharged or forgiven through a bankruptcy, ownership transfer, possibly even estate probate.  Continue reading “Long-Tail Environmental Liabilities; That’s Why You Bought Insurance”

PREFERENTIAL PATHWAYS; UNDERGROUND PIPES AND UTILITY LINES CAN BE CONDUITS FOR THE MIGRATION OF CONTAMINANTS

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written by Stephen R. Henshaw, P.G., President & CEO, EnviroForensics

As seen in the March 2013 issue of Cleaner & Launderer

PDF Version

You can imagine that if wastewater is discharged into a sewer line with cracks in it that the wastewater could contaminate the soil and groundwater.  After all, sewer pipes can be very old and made of a variety of material such as transite, clay, concrete, plastic, or steel.  Of course, leaks are not uncommon in sewer lines.  Sewer lines can crack or break, they can corrode, or the couplings, where pipes are fitted together, can leak and result in “point source” areas of contamination.  Sags and low points are common when a sewer line goes underneath streets and structures.  These low areas can result in sediment and dense chemical liquids pooling in these sag points, resulting in contamination source areas.  Sewer pipes can become blocked and clogged and result in backups that can create points of leakage. 

Historically speaking, sewer pipes were not designed to be leak proof.  The first sewers were essentially brick lined tunnels.  Later, short sections of clay pipes were coupled together to create long lengths of sewer.  The clay sections consisted of a male end and a female (bell) end and the lengths of clay pipe were coupled together.  Gaskets were hopefully placed in the bell end to minimize the leakage, but of course those gaskets would degrade over time.  Transite pipes and concrete pipes similarly had male and female ends and were coupled together.  Continue reading “PREFERENTIAL PATHWAYS; UNDERGROUND PIPES AND UTILITY LINES CAN BE CONDUITS FOR THE MIGRATION OF CONTAMINANTS”

Should You Let Your Sleeping Environmental Dog Lie?

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

How Upcoming Changes in Property Transaction Practices and Developing Vapor Intrusion Concerns May Decide for You

Written by Jeff Carnahan, L.P.G., Vice President, Director of Technical Services, EnviroForensics
As seen in the December 2012 issue of Cleaner & Launderer.

Everyone has heard, and probably declared, that it’s “best to let sleeping dogs lie” at some point.  This old proverb presents the question, “Why bring up issues from the past that will only cause trouble”?  Let’s leave these things alone and as they are.  There is wisdom in this saying, but it’s not necessarily applicable for every situation.  Is there an actual sleeping dog in your path?  Sure, let it lie.  Have you encountered an old adversary with whom you’ve had a disagreement in the past?  Maybe you should just say hi and don’t bring up those old issues.  Of course, I get it.  Do you own a property with a potential environmental problem from past operations?  Are you in a position where you may be blamed for an environmental release?  I don’t believe that the sleeping dog proverb applies here.  If it were me, I’d rather wake that dog myself, gently and cautiously, than have someone else wake him abruptly and make the situation go from manageable to unmanageable.  I’m referencing, as you have guessed, the question of if, when, and how you approach looking for a potential environmental release at your property. 

 

As experienced business owners well know, a large number of environmental problems are discovered during commercial real estate property transactions.  When properties are to be exchanged from one business entity to another, or even refinanced through a new mortgager, potential liability for environmental issues may also be exchanged if the new owner or lender doesn’t perform an adequate inquiry into the environmental conditions at the property.  In turn, financial lending institutions are especially interested in looking for “environmental sleeping dogs”.  They would like to take possession of the property that was used as collateral in the transaction without assuming liability for a costly cleanup, should their loan become default.  Now, I don’t want to bore you with the details and if you’d rather be sleeping you wouldn’t be reading, but it’s important to understand just how you can end up being one who has to deal with that environmental dog regardless of how or by whom he is awaken.  So here we go. Continue reading “Should You Let Your Sleeping Environmental Dog Lie?”

Commingled Plumes – Who Is Responsible For The Cleanup?

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

When contaminated groundwater plumes run together, how is the cost of cleanup divided

Written By Steve Henshaw, P.G., President & CEO, EnviroForensics

PDF Version

A commingled plume is the term used when two or more plumes of contaminated groundwater blend together.  The blending or commingling of groundwater plumes is a fairly common occurrence in urban or commercial settings.  A very common illustration of commingled plumes is when the groundwater beneath two corner gas stations is contaminated with releases from the underground storage tanks.  The groundwater may all move in the same general direction, but because the plumes spread or fan out as they migrate, the plumes blend together and overlap one another. 

 

Commingled Plumes
Commingled Plumes

 

Continue reading “Commingled Plumes – Who Is Responsible For The Cleanup?”

Green mean$ Green!

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Can you afford not to go green?

Written by Steve Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics in collaboration with John Soderberg, PE, Esq. As seen in the September 2012 issue of the Cleaner and Launderer.

Nowadays everyone in business wants to be considered environmentally “friendly” or “green.” The retail dry cleaning industry is no exception.  In fact, given the ecological concern over perchloroethylene or “PERC”, actual or perceived, the retail dry cleaning trade has been at the forefront of the green movement.  However, there is another aspect of an environmentally friendly operation that most cleaners do not recognize, namely, that reducing consumption reduces costs.

The primary reason the trade participates in environmental conservation is because it is part of being a good corporate citizen.  Hence, most retail cleaners are only remotely aware of the potentially positive economic impact “going green” may have, independent of its positive public relations impact.  The purpose of this article is to explore that aspect as well as provide a simple method of prioritizing potentially available “environmentally friendly” or “going green” activities.

Continue reading “Green mean$ Green!”

Never is Too Late!

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Insurance Companies Runoff Leaves Policyholders Vulnerable

Written by Steve Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics. As seen in the August 2012 issue of Cleaner and Launderer.

Many business owners or drycleaners and manufacturing companies know that old general liability policies can provide a defense, even an indemnity, against environmental claims.  The net effect of such a defense can translate into payment and funding of necessary site investigation, legal, and remediation costs.  To put it into business terms, a dry cleaner or other manufacturing company that is saddled with the responsibility to pay to respond to expensive environmental claims can find relief, if they can find old general liability policies that were issued before the insurance industry started adding pollution exclusion language to the policies.  To that end, a property that has been impacted with solvents or other hazardous constituents can be restored to its pre-contaminated condition.  A property that was previously considered to be an environmental liability can be turned back into an asset. Continue reading “Never is Too Late!”

What is a Hazardous Communication Plan and Why Do I Need One?

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written By Adam J. Herrmann, Project Manager, EnviroForensics in Collaboration with Stephen R. Henshaw, P.G., President & CEO, EnviroForensics.
As seen in the April 2012 issue of Cleaner & Launderer.

PDF Version

Do you have a Hazardous Communication Program (HazCom Program) in place?  If you are a dry-cleaning facility and use tetrachloroethylene (PERC) and/or other chemicals for dry-cleaning or spotting, then you should have a current and updated HazCom Program in place.

In 1983, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released the Hazardous Communication Standards, which was expanded to include non-manufacturing employers in 1987.  The Hazardous Communication Standards provide employees with information regarding the hazards of the chemicals they come into contact with during work or have the potential to come into contact with (“Right to Know”).

In order to achieve a safer working environment for employees and to comply with OSHA, the implementation of a HazCom Program is mandatory when employees are or have the potential to be exposed to hazardous chemicals.  Workplace illness and injuries that are chemical related may be prevented by implementing a HazCom Program.  The HazCom Program is designed to aid in the relations between the employer and employee by opening regular lines of communication.  In addition, a HazCom Program will assist the owner/operator to avoid potential OSHA citations, violations, and related compliance costs.  Continue reading “What is a Hazardous Communication Plan and Why Do I Need One?”

Indiana Supreme Court Stays the Course on Pollution Exclusion: General Liability Policies Continue to Provide Coverage in Indiana

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Written By David O’Neill, Director of Investigations, EnviroForensics & PolicyFind

The Indiana Supreme Court has issued its long-anticipated decision in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Flexdar, Inc. and in so doing has re-affirmed its ruling in American States Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 1996) that the absolute “pollution exclusion” typically appearing in commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies issued in policy periods beginning in 1986 and later is ambiguous and unenforceable as to most, if not all, types of environmental liabilities. 

Declining to take State Auto’s suggestion that it bring Indiana’s law more in line with those of other states, the Court rejected what it called “literal” as well as “situational” interpretations of the absolute pollution exclusion, opting instead to stay the course and reaffirm its prior rulings regarding the ambiguity of the exclusion. Continue reading “Indiana Supreme Court Stays the Course on Pollution Exclusion: General Liability Policies Continue to Provide Coverage in Indiana”