Category: Site Investigation and Remediation

EnviroForensics’ Use of HAPSITE Technology Allows for More Accurate Vapor Intrusion Inspection

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Correctly assessing the Vapor Intrusion (VI) exposure pathway is a complex process, which is rarely straight forward. When VI does occur at or near hazardous material cleanup sites, it rarely results in a constant stream of contaminants into the breathing zone.  Rather, there are many variables that affect the way vapors move from the subsurface into a structure.  Daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations result in variable pressures within and beneath buildings that change VI conditions. The amount of precipitation that falls also affects vapor intrusion rates, and can at times temporarily stop it altogether.  Building foundation and construction details can affect the pathway that intruding vapors may take once beneath or inside a structure, thereby resulting in a distribution of indoor air contaminants that aren’t intuitively consistent with predictive VI rules of thumb. Complicating things even more is the fact that numerous household products contain the same chemicals that we are trying to assess from below ground contamination.  Taking into account all of these variables to determine if a human inhalation exposure is in existence, or may be in existence at some time during the year, is a highly detailed and specialized process.

Fortunately, the VI team at EnviroForensics maintains a line of highly specialized, field-based, analytical instrumentation that can be used to tease out the necessary details during VI assessments. One of the most highly developed instruments in our arsenal is a portable Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer, named HAPSITE. The HAPSITE was originally designed by its manufacturer for the U.S. Military and is designed to deliver real time qualitative and quantitative, laboratory-quality results for air samples in the field. The HAPSITE has the capability of identifying and measuring specific volatile organic compounds as low as the parts per trillion (ppt) range. The HAPSITE instrument can be calibrated to measure the ions specific to the contaminants of concern (COCs) at the Site.

The Enviroforensics VI team consists of a certified HAPSITE operator. When operated in ‘survey’ mode, the HAPSITE instrument provides real-time data, depicted as an on-going line graph on the front panel display of the instrument.  We use this survey mode during VI assessments to find specific points in a structure where vapors may be entering the indoor air. We have found that cracks in floors and walls, floor drains, pipe chases, interior wall spaces and attics are all important features to explore. Background sources, such as those common household products mentioned earlier, can also be found hiding in closets, drawers, basement corners, etc. When an area of concern is located, the HAPSITE is switched to ‘run’ mode. This sampling mode collects an air sample that is analyzed by the instrument with laboratory quality, in a short period of time.  This type of real-time analysis allows for adjustments to be made in the field and provides comprehensive conclusions with fewer mobilizations and sampling events.

During any VI assessment, the main line of regulatory thought is that if VI is occurring at any time during the day or year, that worst case exposure condition is used to calculate the occupant’s potential risk. By using highly-specialized instrumentation, such as the HAPSITE, the EnviroForensics VI team greatly improves the odds that we can interpret all of the variables that are part of VI assessments and properly report true exposure conditions.

About the Authors:

meganhamiltonmain-137x137Megan Hamilton
Risk Assessor and Vapor Intrusion Specialist

866-888-7911
mhamilton@enviroforensics.com

Ms. Hamilton has over fifteen years of experience in environmental regulatory oversight and consulting, with a focus on risk assessment and vapor intrusion expertise. Her diversified professional experience includes research, policy development, technical writing, public outreach, vapor intrusion investigation and remediation, data analysis and interpretation, human health risk assessment, and conceptual site model analysis. Ms. Hamilton served as a technical, scientific, and risk assessment policy resource for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM) Office of Land Quality for nine years. She also served as the coordinator and team leader for the IDEM Vapor Intrusion Workgroup for six years and is the main author of the current Indiana Vapor Intrusion Guidance. She has helped design and implement numerous vapor intrusion investigations for chlorinated and petroleum contaminated sites throughout Indiana.  Ms. Hamilton is experienced in evaluating human health risk assessments, as well as vapor intrusion risk assessments for sites regulated by all of IDEM’s remediation programs, including:

  • Brownfields Program
  • Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
  • RCRA Program
  • State Cleanup Program
  • Voluntary Remediation Program

Ms. Hamilton develops, helps implement, and oversees the VI investigations and mitigation for all of EnviroForensic’s projects. She is also the main contact for risk communication issues and community outreach development. Ms. Hamilton has presented at several National Conferences, is a member of the National EPA VI Science Advisory Committee, and currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Midwestern States Environmental Consultants Association (MSECA).

mainjeffJeff Carnahan, L.P.G.
Vice President, Chief Technical Officer

866-888-7911
jcarnahan@enviroforensics.com

Jeff Carnahan is a Licensed Professional Geologist (LPG) with over 17 years of environmental consulting and remediation experience.  Mr. Carnahan’s expertise has focused on the investigation and interpretation of subsurface releases of hazardous substances for the purpose of evaluating and controlling the risk and cost implications to his clients.  While managing sites ranging in size from retail gas stations and dry cleaners to large manufacturing facilities, Mr. Carnahan has amassed extensive experience working with releases of chlorinated solvents within voluntary and enforcement cleanup programs for various State agencies and the U.S. EPA. Throughout his career Mr. Carnahan has provided technical support to the legal community regarding the cause, origin, transport and potential cost of environmental releases. Additionally, Mr. Carnahan has over 13 years of experience in the investigation and mitigation of vapor intrusion issues and leads the VI Assessment Team at EnviroForensics. His experience and insight make Mr. Carnahan uniquely qualified to advise his clients on potential environmental liability issues and cost implications.

 

 

 

 

Cradle to Grave Environmental Responsibility and Long-Tail Liability

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

“Cradle to Grave Responsibility” and “Long-Tail Liability” are terms that greatly affect anyone who purchases, handles or manages hazardous substances. Cradle to Grave Responsibility refers to the fact that any person who generates a hazardous waste material is responsible for that waste from the time it is generated until the end of time. With that being said, some hazardous substances tend to stick around for longer periods of times than others, including chlorinated solvents (solvents commonly used in dry cleaning and manufacturing operations such as PCE and TCE). Because there is no statute of limitations that relieves someone of this long-term responsibility, the management of hazardous substances is a Long-Tail Liability.

The responsible party (RP) in these situations is any individual, or business entity, who owns or operates a facility that is impacted with hazardous substances, or anyone who accepts any hazardous substances for transport to a facility if the transporter selected the facility. When the RP is no longer physically, financially or administratively present the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, which is commonly known as Superfund) applies to determine liability. CERCLA may require that the Federal or State government cleans the contamination at the site and later approaches other RPs to reimburse those costs, or RPs may have the chance to offer their own cleanup approach beforehand.

An RP has different options when a settlement demand or lawsuit is filed for contribution by the government. Ignoring the suit or demand is not recommended, since the government can be very tough on those who choose to do so. The best option for an RP is to hire a consultant to help evaluate their liability and then investigate and remediate the contamination, if necessary. If active remediation is actually needed, it is possible that an RP can use historic insurance policies as a source of funding the environmental work.

In his article from the September 2013 issue of Cleaner and Launderer entitled “Cradle to Grave Responsibility and Long-Tail Liability,” Stephen Henshaw, President and CEO of EnviroForensics, discusses these options and offers his expert advice. He also suggests ways to deal with Long-Tail Liability to help protect individuals and companies managing hazardous substances.

New Wisconsin DNR Guidance is Defining Long Term Obligations

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

You have probably seen previous articles by EnviroForensics talking about the importance of a well-defined investigation and remediation due to the potential long term stewardship responsibilities and costs that could be incurred following cleanup activities.  Those potentials are now becoming reality, since just this month the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) released two guidance documents on this topic.  The first is an internal DNR guidance document, RR-5474, Vapor Intrusion Continuing Obligations Applied in DNR Closure Approvals.  RR-5474 addresses DNR processes specific to closure approval letters.  The second is a companion document, RR-042, DNR Case Closure Continuing Obligations: Vapor Intrusion, which speaks to responsible parties and environmental consultants, and provides information for completing the necessary Case Closure-GIS Registry Form 4400-202.  These new documents describe the application and implementation of these vapor intrusion continuing obligations and are applicable at sites closed with residual contamination left in place in order to prevent exposure from the vapor intrusion pathway.

You may have been directed by the WDNR to conduct investigation and remediation for the release of tetrachloroethene (perc) or other chemicals.  Much attention in the past few years has been given to vapor intrusion and mitigation if a release of perc has been found.  Vapor mitigation (exposure control) often has been in the form of a sub-slab depressurization system, or SSDS for the short term.  These systems, while effective at temporarily stopping vapor intrusion or preventing it from happening, are often forgotten pieces of the investigation and remediation puzzle once closure is attained.  In a very formal way the WDNR has now said vapor intrusion mitigation systems can no longer be forgotten relics of the investigation past. They must be maintained and monitored into the future.

Both WDNR documents contain contaminant level considerations that WDNR staff, contaminated site owners, or consultants may use to make decisions for applying vapor intrusion continuing obligations.

How do these new guidance documents affect you?  Well, if you are approaching the point of closure, you and your consultant should reference RR-042 and the included table, “Considerations for Applying Vapor Intrusion Continuing Obligations”, to determine which continuing obligations will be required by the WDNR. They may even dictate continuing obligations prior to approving the remedial action.

By the time closure is anticipated following remediation, all vapor intrusion pathways and ongoing mitigation should be fully understood and all involved parties fully engaged (i.e. off-site property owners with SSDS installed.  However, by thoroughly evaluating and remediating to a greater extent, the need for continuing obligations for the vapor intrusion pathway may be eliminated.

Once you have completed your investigation and remediation to the extent possible and you have submitted your Form 4400-202 for case closure, the DNR will review the proposed closure and the need for continuing obligations as guided by RR-5474.  Should the DNR find a deficiency in the proposed closure continuing obligation plan, they may deny closure or make closure contingent on additional continuing obligations.  These may include operation and maintenance of vapor mitigation systems, additional monitoring, or property use restrictions until such time it can be demonstrated that the potential exposure is no longer present.

The continued operation of vapor mitigation systems or additional testing can be costly over time.  As written, the WDNR documents indicate costs associated with continuing obligations will be incurred by the individual property owner, which may represent long term liabilities for the responsible party.  Currently the DERF does not provide a mechanism to fund activities beyond closure.  In fact the guidance indicates formal changes to continuing obligations, land use changes, and removal from the GIS registry may in some cases cost several thousand dollars per off-site property.  As such, alternative funding sources may be necessary to manage these costs.

In the end, the best approach is to eliminate as many long term obligations through detailed assessment and adequate remedial actions.    When making short and long term decisions for your site, consider all scenarios prior to accepting a long term continuing obligation for your closure.  Keep in mind that DERF funds are limited and the DNR’s ability is limited in approving remedial efforts that are aggressive enough to minimize costly continuing obligations.  If you think that you may incur such post-closure costs, please don’t wait until a remedy has been approved by DERF to start seeking alternative funding.

About the Author:

robcolorthumbRob Hoverman, L.P.G.
Regional Manager, EnviroForensics Wisconsin Office
866-888-7911
rhoverman@enviroforensics.com

Mr. Hoverman is the Wisconsin Regional Manager and a registered professional geologist with more than 14 years of professional environmental services with a focus on contaminated site management.  Mr. Hoverman currently serves as senior project manager for several projects in Indiana and Wisconsin.  His diversified professional experience includes research, scoping and budgeting, project management, data analysis and interpretation for both hazardous and non-hazardous substances, including compounds such as chlorinated solvents, petroleum related constituents, as well as metals.  Mr. Hoverman has managed numerous investigation and remediation projects regulated by state programs, and his responsibilities involved every aspect of projects from proposal preparation through project closure, regulatory negotiations and stakeholder communications.  Beyond technical evaluation and interpretation duties include obtaining contract approval, job initiation, budgetary analysis, budget tracking, and subcontractor contracting and management.  Mr. Hoverman has also served as technical support for numerous vapor intrusion including soil gas, sub-slab, indoor air sampling and mitigation.  As the Regional Manager for EnviroForensics, Mr. Hoverman maintains momentum and resources for Wisconsin projects.

Hoosier Environmental Council Sends Thank You for EnviroForensics’ Assistance with Blackford County Concerned Citizens Issue

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

This spring, EnviroForensics assisted the Blackford County Concerned Citizens (BCCC) and the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) in investigations involving health concerns in Blackford County, IN. The area historically contained numerous glass factories and has recently faced high cancer rates and neurologic diseases cases. Darci Thomas, Project Manager at EnviroForensics, was integral in researching and testing the factory sites.

Darci’s work revealed that soil samples from Little League baseball fields in Montpelier, IN and Southside Elementary School in Hartford City, IN—two sites that had formerly hosted glass factories—contained the same levels of arsenic and lead as typical soil in that part of Indiana, dispelling any concern in those areas. Conversely, Darci’s soil testing helped to identify areas of elevated arsenic and lead concentrations at Hartford City’s Little League baseball field (formerly American Window Glass) and at a private property that was once Johnston Glass Company. Using this knowledge, HEC was able to instruct the private property owner, Hartford City and the parents of Little League players on how to safely use the properties.

These results were much appreciated by HEC. Jesse Kharbanda, Executive Director at HEC, and Indra Frank, Environmental Health Project Director at HEC, sent a letter thanking Darci and EnviroForensics for their work on the project. The full PDF of the letter can be found here: Hoosier Environmental Council Thank You Letter

EnviroForensics is honored to have worked on this important study and to have an excellent project manager such as Darci.

EnviroForensics Assists Hoosier Environmental Council & Blackford County Concerned Citizens Group to Identify Heavy Metals in Surface Soils in Hartford City and Montpelier, IN

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

UPDATED

The County of Blackford has experienced alarming statistics in cancer and other serious health ailments cases in recent history. For 2003-2007, Blackford County’s cancer rate was higher than any other County in Indiana, and it is still within the top percentile. In 2009, Blackford County Concerned Citizens (BCCC) formed when local residents that have grown up and/or lived in Blackford County most of their lives aimed to address the high rates of cancer and neurologic diseases cases within Blackford County. Their primary mission is “to improve the quality of life of Blackford County’s residents by reducing the incidence of diseases, primarily through citizen action, and advocating to have diseases investigated.”

In 2014, the BCCC partnered with the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) and other environmental specialist organizations to evaluate if there’s a link between existing contamination and the serious illnesses. That’s where EnviroForensics stepped in. Alongside EnviroForensics, Pine Environmental Services, Inc., SCS Environmental Contractors, Inc. and Envision Laboratories, Inc. generously donated their time and resources to help the BCCC and HEC with these investigations.

The HEC reports that Blackford County has a long history of industrial operations that produced hazardous waste, such as lead oxide and arsenic, which could be a contributing factor to current health concerns among its residents. In the 1900s, there were glass factories that used arsenic and lead oxide in their process. Lead oxide was used to enhance the look and make the glass easier to melt. Arsenic helped clear the glass of bubbles and discoloration. However, both lead oxide and arsenic are toxic heavy metals that are harmful to human body nervous system, especially young children. Arsenic is a known carcinogen; exposure is often associated with an increased risk of cancer of the lung, bladder, kidney and skin. Some studies have suggested that it also has an association with colon, prostate and liver cancers.

Since there were no handling or waste disposal regulations for materials containing these toxins  in the early 20th century, hazardous materials and waste often were haphazardly discarded, resulting in contaminated soil. The toxins typically concentrated near the ground surface where chances of  human exposure through direct contact is most likely.

During the HEC study, EnviroForensics assisted in evaluating historical resources to identify the precise locations of these historical industrial operations.  HEC identified numerous old glass factories and gained access for testing soils at three (3) locations for the presence of lead and arsenic. EnviroForensics devised a Sampling and Analysis Plan that included collecting up to twenty, 2-foot long soil cores per Site for analysis of lead and arsenic.  On April 17, 2015, Darci Thomas and Michele Murday of EnviroForensics spent the day at the three (3) Blackford County locations collecting soil cores, and geocoding each sample location by GPS.  The sampling was completed courtesy of SCS Environmental Contractors, Inc. using a track-mounted direct-push coring machine.  A total of 42 soil cores were collected and brought back to the EnviroForensics warehouse for preparation to be analyzed with an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument, courtesy of Pine Environmental Services, Inc.  The following week, as a quality control measure, 16 soil samples were selected for laboratory analysis of lead and arsenic by Envision Laboratories, Inc., per U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 6010B.  All data was recorded on spreadsheets and maps were produced for each property with all corresponding sample locations.  All of the raw data was then provided to HEC for further analysis and consideration.

HEC presented preliminary findings to the BCCC at a local meeting on April 25, 2015. In June, HEC released further results in a press release, reporting that soil samples from Montpelier and Hartford City’s Southside Elementary School contained about the same levels of arsenic and lead as soil generally does in that part of Indiana. But, “A few deposits of arsenic and lead were found at Hartford City’s baseball field, high enough to exceed Indiana’s residential standard, but well within the standard for recreational fields.”

“Dr. Indra Frank, environmental health project director with the Hoosier Environmental Council, said that while levels are acceptable according to state standards, they are high enough to exercise caution when at the baseball fields. Dr. Frank recommends parents do a few simple things to limit exposure to the soil:

·       Don’t let children get the soil in their mouths
·       After spending time there, wash your hands and children’s hands
·       Wash clothes that have soil on them (like baseball uniforms)
·       Leave shoes that have been to the site at the door, don’t wear them into your home

“Dr. Frank indicated that while sports are fine at the site, the Hartford City property that has the Babe Ruth field should not be used for housing or growing food crops in the future unless the soil is remediated.  Additional soil tests are planned to better define the locations of the heavy metals.”

In an interview with EnviroForensics, Dr. Frank says residential sites near the baseball fields should also be tested, and she thanked EnviroForensics for what she called “a tremendous service to Blackford County.”

EnviroForensics is honored to have been asked to be part of such an important study, and we look forward to continued participation in support of HEC and the people of Blackford County, Indiana.

EnviroForensics Completes Investigation; Begins Remediation Stage of Former Evansville Dry Cleaner Project

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

photoWe are happy to report that another one of our projects has entered the beginning stages of remediation for one of our valued clients. EnviroForensics has been conducting an environmental investigation at the former Harvey Cleaners of Evansville, Indiana since due diligence efforts at a nearby property uncovered contamination coming from the former Harvey’s operations.  The owner of the former Harvey’s Cleaners has been working alongside the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), and EnviroForensics, to determine the breadth of the problem.

Subsurface investigation activities, initially requested by the IDEM in 2010, identified the release of hazardous materials to the subsurface at the site.  Additional site investigation activities were performed by EnviroForensics under the direction of IDEM, and the data revealed that the historic dry cleaning operations had impacted not only the soil, but also the groundwater beneath the building.  The assessment to determine the precise source and extents of the contamination was recently finalized, and a strategy to clean-up the site was put into action this month.

Soil excavation was selected as the primary remedial option to definitively and efficiently remediate the release of these chemicals to the soils, and will have a positive effect on the low level of groundwater impacts.  Demolition of the vacant building was determined to be a necessary step in order to gain access to the impacted soils beneath the building’s foundation. The demolition of the building began in earnest this week.  The remediation efforts are being funded using insurance assets of the former Harvey’s Cleaners and are being completed at no additional cost to the owner of the former business. This summer’s remedial action will ultimately lead to site being granted regulatory closure by the IDEM, which will then release the property for beneficial reuse.

The Steps You Should Take if Environmental Investigation and Remediation are Inevitable

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

For nearly 20 years, EnviroForensics has been one of the industry’s leading environmental engineering firms. In that time, we’ve often seen how our clients can feel worried, and perhaps even overwhelmed, when environmental investigation and remediation becomes necessary.  They ask us:

  •  What does remediation mean for our business?
  •  What are our legal concerns?
  •  How will we pay for all of this?

The regulatory process of cleaning up contamination can be daunting and scary if you find yourself in need of responding to environmental problems. Fortunately, we’re on your side to help make the process go as smoothly as possible. Here’s where you need to begin:

1)      Be Proactive – If you suspect remediation is required, maintaining as much control of the process as you can is in your best interest. Start by gathering as much historical insurance and business documentation as possible, so you’re prepared as the situation unfolds. As we’ve noted before, if environmental contamination is discovered and you are named a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) you’re on the clock to solve the problem, and the regulatory agency doesn’t give much thought to your ability to pay for testing, legal expenses, and cleanup. Being proactive allows you to guide the process and strategically incorporate the option of funding by way of old insurance policies.

2)      Research Your Insurance – The best option for dry cleaners dealing with the potential costs of environmental remediation is to find old comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policies. Prior to 1985, many insurance companies did not include language in their policies for absolute pollution exclusion. If CGL policies were purchased before the language changed to exclude environmental contamination, you may be able to use those policies to cover your expenses. Environmental cleanups can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take a long time to complete. Investing the upfront time to research your insurance can help your business avoid drastic financial implications.

3)      Seek Help – Hoping a problem will just go away is fruitless. If you choose to ignore environmental issues, the result may be catastrophic financial or even legal consequences. When you’re unsure of the status of old insurance policies, you can get help from an insurance archaeologist such as PolicyFind. You may not know where to find old policies or policies purchased by previous owners of the business, but an insurance archaeologist may have success. Found policies can often cover the costs of legal fees and fund the environmental investigation and remediation necessary to improve the condition of the affected land so it meets regulatory requirements.

PolicyFind, which is owned by EnviroForensics, has a high success rate of finding evidence of old policies. If an old policy is uncovered, you want insurance experts on your side that understand the right way to apply your rights to ensure that you benefit from the documentation. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are potentially on the line – getting help from an expert is imperative.

Are you concerned your business needs remediation? Stay in control by following these steps. Contact us today to learn more.

When Environmental Cleanup is Good Community Relations

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Faced with the possibility that decades-old dry cleaning solvent may have polluted ground under its original dry cleaning plant in Jeffersonville, Indiana, family-owned dry cleaning business Nu Yale Cleaners contracted EnviroForensics to investigate. Together, the two companies are proactively taking action for a safer, cleaner environment by removing perchloroethylene (PCE contamination), a dry-cleaning solvent they no longer use. And Nu Yale is happy to talk about it.

The Positive Side of Things

Believe it or not, even with all of the scariness and seriousness, cleaning up environmental contamination can be good community relations.  The key is understanding that there is a positive light to cleaning up environmental contamination and that it doesn’t have to hurt your reputation. Continue reading “When Environmental Cleanup is Good Community Relations”

What Triggers an Environmental Investigation?

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

Dry cleaners often live in a state of fear. Harsh chemicals used by these businesses can permeate the ground nearby, resulting in environmental problems that may lead to costly cleanup or litigation. Many business owners are in the dark when it comes to understanding what triggers an environmental investigation. For some, the best option is to simply look the other way.

What triggers an environmental investigation?

The most common triggering event is a requirement by a bank lending on the property. The property owner may want to refinance the property, or a prospective buyer of the property wants to obtain financing.

Other issues that can trigger environmental investigations include:

·         Contamination being discovered  in municipal or private drinking water wells

·         Contamination being discovered beneath neighboring or down gradient properties

·         Regional investigations conducted under the direction of state or federal regulatory agencies

How does this process begin?

When a bank evaluates whether or not to lend on a commercial property, they will require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The Phase I ESA is a due diligence evaluation of the property to identify potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. A Phase I ESA is conducted under guidelines established by ASTM International, an organization of engineers, scientists, and policymakers that set technical standards.

The consultant conducting the Phase I ESA will inspect the site for signs of staining, evidence of spills, stressed vegetation, determination of underground and above ground tanks, secondary containment, violations, and operating practices. They will evaluate records at the fire department, local health department, state environmental agencies, and federal EPA to determine whether fires or chemical spills were reported on the subject property or on neighboring properties. This review would also evaluate what businesses are operating in the vicinity that could cause environmental impacts that may impact the subject site.  The past operation of certain types of businesses, including dry cleaners, automatically increases the chance that further ground testing will be required prior to lending.

New guidance passed in 2013 puts greater emphasis on assessing the potential impacts from vapor intrusion and vapor migration on the property. The definition of an environmental concern within the guidance has been changed to include contamination in the subsurface vapor phase, in addition to the soil and groundwater.

The net result of this new guidance will be an increased focus on dry cleaners that used perchloroethylene (PERC).

What happens after the Phase I ESA?

Should the Phase I ESA identify a reasonable potential that soil and groundwater may be impacted, the consultant will suggest conducting a Phase II ESA. A Phase II ESA includes collection of subsurface samples to determine whether the property has been impacted with chemicals that pose a risk to human health or the environment.

What does this mean?

PERC is a common dry cleaning solvent, which is why focus is placed on dry cleaners. When PERC is found in the groundwater, the situation escalates rapidly.

The State of California, for example, found levels of PERC in municipal drinking water wells and immediately sought to identify all dry cleaners that operated within a mile radius of the well for the previous 50 years.  By using historical records, the address, name, and period of time a dry cleaner operated at a location can be identified.

If PERC, or any other contaminant is found in soil or groundwater during a Phase II ESA, the release is required to be reported to the state environmental agency.  Subsequent investigations and, ultimately, remediation activities, are then required to be performed with oversight by the agency.

The term “release” will now also include identified impacts in the vapor phase (i.e. soil gas). The need to assess the subsurface vapor phase (soil gas phase) will likely result in increased sampling, which could lead to an increase in dry cleaner sites identified as potentially having releases from their operations.

What can you do?

All dry cleaners must understand how investigations are triggered and what to expect after, which is why locating the old commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies is vital. Old CGL policies written before 1985 or 1986 don’t include absolute pollution exclusion language and can be used to defend the insured against contamination claims.

EnviroForensics is highly regarded for our expertise in chlorinated solvent contamination and vapor intrusion (VI) issues. If VI is a concern for your property, we encourage you to learn more.

To find out additional information about environmental remediation triggers and steps you can take to protect your business, contact us today.

EnviroForensics® is an environmental engineering firm specializing in soil and groundwater investigation and remediation and vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation. EnviroForensics® has all the tools available to us to perform the highest caliber science in the market today, which allows designing and implementing knowledgeable, innovative and effective solutions to PCE and TCE contamination. EnviroForensics® has pioneered and perfected the utilization of Commercial General Liability insurance policies as a resource to pay for the high costs associated with soil and groundwater investigations, remediation, and legal defense. 

Using Historical Insurance to Cover Investigation and Cleanup Costs

Posted on by Jeff Carnahan

by: Steve Henshaw, CEO of EnviroForensics & PolicyFind

As seen in Cleaner & Launderer
Clothes hanging in dry cleaning warehouse
Underground contamination can be a problem at a dry cleaning site that used chlorinated solvents in the past, but it this doesn’t have to be something that ruins a business owner’s savings or reputation.

More often than not, environmental contamination and historical operations of a dry cleaning business go hand in hand. While this may sound unfair, one could say the same thing about the historical operations of a gas station, a metal plater, and even a computer microchip manufacturer. This was particularly true for activities in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Industries that used chemicals for cleaning and degreasing were not aware that when those chemicals spilled, even accidentally and in small quantities, they could (and often) have led to soil and groundwater contamination.

Why are degreasing chemicals harmful?

Degreasing chemicals fall under a general organic chemistry category called chlorinated hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents. These chemicals are characterized as being heavier than water (meaning they sink into the groundwater), persistent in the environment (meaning they don’t decompose very fast), volatile (meaning they prefer being in the gas phase over the liquid phase) and carcinogenic (meaning they have been determined to either cause cancer or may likely cause cancer at certain exposure levels). No matter which side of the argument you stand on, whether cleaning solvents cause cancer or not, one thing everyone should agree on is that investigating and remediating chlorinated solvent sites with Perchloroethylene (PERC) or Trichloroethylene (TCE) is very expensive.

Who’s responsible for the clean up?

With respect to responsibility, any person or company that owned or operated a business where chlorinated solvents were used should know that with very few exceptions, they are legally liable for contamination associated with that business and operation. Worse yet, the law states that an individual or the business is held jointly and severally responsible. Finally, like taxes, environmental liability is considered a long-tail liability in that it never goes away.
On the face of it, what I’ve presented seems so unfair. After all, chlorinated solvents were considered to be safe and state of the art since they were not explosive or flammable like petroleum based products (e.g. kerosene or Stoddard solvent). People were handling the solvents in accordance with the laws of the time some 50 years ago and now they are considered an environmental risk subject to legal enforcement. Businesses that operated with good housekeeping practices and followed the rules are subject to be in the same category as a business that showed blatant disregard for the laws or the environment and operated a business with intentional pollution. In addition, a business that operated only for one year is just as liable for the environmental contamination as a business that operated for 20 years. Who makes this stuff up? It most certainly is not fair. Enough of the doom and gloom though.

“Absolute Pollution Exclusion”

After ~1985, most insurance companies added very specific language to CGL policies that contained absolute pollution exclusion. In other words, they were not covering individuals and businesses for pollution or contamination associated with dry cleaning operations. A separate environmental policy would be required to cover environmental pollution and contamination. Better yet, the courts in some states have ruled that the term “pollution” and therefore “pollution exclusion” is an ambiguous term due to the way insurance policies were written, even after the nationwide changes that took place in ~1985.

Consider these two examples:

  1. If an accident happened while you were filling your car’s gas tank at that gas station and you or someone you were with was injured, then you would expect the gas station’s insurance to cover any injuries.
  2. Yet, if the gasoline from a gas station drained into the ground and caused contamination to drinking water, this situation would not be covered by insurance because the gasoline is now considered a contaminant. I think this logic was in play when courts of some states ruled that the word “contamination” was ambiguous.

So, if you or your business bought CGL insurance before the policies contained absolute pollution exclusion language, you are likely to have insurance coverage that can address environmental contamination, even if that contamination has only been recently discovered. In addition, if you acquired the business, the business before you may have insurance that would cover environmental contamination costs.

You might say, “That’s all great, but what if I can’t find my old policies or the policies that were bought by former owners?”. In my experience, more times than not, those old policies (or evidence of insurance) can still be found. There are companies, like PolicyFind™, with investigators called insurance archeologists that focus on finding old policies or evidence of old policies. In my experience, more often than not, a good insurance archeologist can find evidence of old insurance.

Let’s say you found old insurance. Now what? Insurance is designed to defend and indemnify a policyholder against a claim. The claim is the demand from the regulatory agency or third party requiring action to mitigate the damage or harm. In some states, a claim or suit could be a letter from the regulatory agency or a neighboring property owner demanding a response to identified environmental contamination. In other states, the courts have determined that the insurers must only defend an actual lawsuit.

insurance archeologist looking through files
A consultation from an experienced insurance archeologist can uncover millions of dollars in usable assets to pay for environmental cleanup and legal fees.

In pulling this concept together, a defense would include paying for lawyers dealing with the environmental contamination. A defense would also include quantifying an individual or business’s environmental exposure and liability. The only way to quantify environmental liability is to collect environmental samples (e.g. soil, soil gas, indoor vapor, and groundwater). It would also mean determining how expensive a cleanup would be, which means that aquifer tests, feasibility studies, and remediation technology evaluations, should be covered.

Obviously, the process of using old insurance policies has many parts and can include an insurance archeology component, a legal component, and a technical component. All three parts have to work together to get the business back in good standing. Understanding all aspects of the process is not your job, that’s why you hire experts like EnviroForensics® and PolicyFind™ to take care of the process for you.

If you’re facing an environmental liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars, you should look into historical insurance policies and see how they could work for you and your situation. We have worked with hundreds of business owners who have used historical insurance to help pay for environmental investigations and remediation. Depending on the set of facts, known environmental insurance claims can be sold and assigned to other third parties to manage and run. Small businesses, including their stock, insurance assets and liabilities can be bought and sold. There are numerous permutations to the business side of managing environmental claims and a whole new industry is in front of us. It might be encouraging to know that there are companies out there still fighting the good fight.

Contact us today by filling out our Dry Cleaner Form

With over 30 years of experience, Steve Henshaw, PG has a wide range of experience in the environmental remediation field. As CEO of EnviroForensics, Henshaw serves as a client and technical manager on projects associated with site characterization, remedial design, remedial implementation and operation, litigation support and insurance coverage matters. These projects have included landfills, solvent and petroleum refineries, metal plating shops, food processors, chemical manufacturers and distributors, heavy equipment manufacturers, and transporters. Henshaw’s expertise includes knowledge of industry practices and procedures, and an extensive understanding of contaminants in soil and groundwater. He has also served as a testifying expert on behalf of individual landowners and facility operators at several Brownfields sites impacted by industrial activities.

Henshaw is passionate about access to clean water in developing countries and co-found a 501(c)(3) nonprofit called Water For Empowerment in 2015. The organization’s current project empowers women and girls in rural Nicaragua to create healthy futures through clean water initiatives.