Blog

Contractors will not be able to work in pre-1978 homes after April 22, 2010 without lead paint certification!
A new Federal Law set forth by the EPA requires training certification for any contractor involved in any construction activity that will or has the potential to disturb lead based paint. The new EPA rule will directly affect ALL paid renovators who work in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, including: renovation contractors, maintenance workers in multi-family housing, painters and other specialty trades. Under the rule, child-occupied facilities are defined as residential, public or commercial buildings where children under age six are present on a regular basis. The requirements apply to renovation, repair or painting activities. The rule does not apply to minor maintenance or repair activities where less than six square feet of lead-based paint is disturbed in a room or where less then 20 square feet of lead-based paint is disturbed on the exterior. Window replacement is not minor maintenance or repair.

Who is affected?
Residential rental property owners / managers, general contractors, remodelers, window installers, door installers, painters, insulation contractors, electricians, plumbers, siding contractors and any other contractor working in pre-1978 housing where there is a risk that lead paint or dust will be disturbed. The EPA has said it’s better to be safe and just get the certification than be sorry.

About the Training Certification Course
The 8-hour certification course was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to train renovation, repair and painting contractors how to work safely in housing with lead-based paint. This falls under the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, and HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule.

Who from a construction company needs the training certification?
It could be your project manager, superintendent, crew leader – whoever is working onsite at your pre-1978 housing project. To be in compliance with the law, the certified individual must remain onsite at all times during the construction phase. For example, if you work on 10 separate homes at once (all pre-1978 housing) then you need to get 10 people certified so that you have one certified individual at each jobsite at all times.

How long is the training certification good for?
The training certification is good for five years.

What if the certified individual leaves my company?
The certification stays with the individual so if he/she leaves your company and they are the only one from your company that is certified, then you are non-compliant. They must have the certificate on them at the jobsite at all times.

What if a contractor is caught non-compliant?
The EPA states on their website that those found in non-compliance could face hefty daily fines of up to $32,500 per violation / per day until both the individual and firm are compliant.

Firm Certification Vs. Individual Certification
Firm certification is completely separate from the individual certification training. Each firm (company) doing any type of construction in pre-1978 housing must also get their firm certified. To get your firm certified, you’ll simply fill out the EPA’s firm application and mail it to the EPA with a $300 check. The firm certification is valid for five years. It is recommended by the EPA that you mail your paperwork and payment in no later than February 1, 2010. They state on their website that it could take up to 60 days to process so you don’t want to wait until the last minute.

Make sure to take the class from an EPA certified company, certified to instruct the EPA’s Lead Safety Certification for Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule.

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm or call the Lead Paint Hotline at 1-800-424-LEAD.

A federal jury in Utica, New York has found Syracuse-based Certified Environmental Services, Inc (CES), two of its managers, and one of its employees guilty of conspiracy and fraud relating to violations of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect citizens from harmful air emissions. One of the pollutants which the act covers is asbestos fibers.

The law is enforced by federal authorities. However, because an EPA employee cannot be stationed at every factory or building, they rely on reporting submitted to them. Because the reporting can often be difficult or confusing, businesses usually employ environmental consulting firms to aid them. These firms have a solid understanding of the environmental laws, and work to ensure that their clients do not commit any violations. For the most part, they perform their jobs without incident and are extremely valuable to their clients.

Unfortunately, like most federally regulated activities, the environmental laws are not completely immune from corruption. The firm, CES, was found guilty of conspiring to aid and abet a substantive amount of Clean Air Act violations, commit mail fraud, and defraud the United States. Several defendants were also convicted of making false statements to federal law enforcement. To be specific, the charges of conspiracy were related to asbestos inspections and abatement programs.

“Falsifying asbestos reports and air quality data is a serious crime and undermines our nation’s efforts to protect human health and the environment,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Exposure to asbestos can be fatal and the conviction by a jury shows that the American people will not tolerate illegal activity that puts the public at risk of cancer or other serious respiratory diseases.”

For almost a decade, CES conspired to falsify lab results to prove that asbestos removal was done properly. In many instances, the locations of these incidents were homes and schools. The false reports declared that the buildings were free of asbestos, even though there was still asbestos debris remaining. The occupants of these buildings, believing that the asbestos was removed, have been potentially exposed to asbestos inhalation, putting them at risk of developing cancer. These people have since been notified, and a proper asbestos cleanup will be conducted at the affected buildings.

Conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and false statements counts each carry a possible sentence of incarceration for up to five years and a fine of $250,000. The mail fraud counts can each carry a term of incarceration of up to 20 years and similar fines.

The conviction of the firm, CES, is the latest in a series of asbestos removal cases that have been brought to trial by the EPA and Justice Department. In June 2010, the owners of Kodiak Construction Service were sentenced to a combined 13 years in jail. Also, individuals from the company, J&W Construction, Inc, were sentenced to four years and forced to pay more than $850,000 as restitution to victims of their illegal asbestos removal and disposal activities.

For more information and video on the case: http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Federal-jury-finds-Syracuse-company-guilty-of/4uiD-sZgq0u59CpL9wbfjQ.cspx

For more information: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/asbestos_etc.html

In follow up to the information I emailed on the new Washington state law requiring environmental disclosure on commercial property transactions I received the following question/s from one of our agents.

Email from Agent:

Chris,

What is the average cost of this type of insurance? What is the rate based on? Is it something the buyer carries or the seller? Am I correct in assuming this would be a topic to discuss with real estate brokers, i.e brokers I know, as a way to establish a referral source?

Wendy

ERMI Response: This would be an excellent way to establish a referral source from real estate professionals, attorneys, environmental engineers, bankers, any profession that has an interest in real estate that could be impacted if there were an environmental liability associated with a commercial property transaction.

Minimum premiums for Property Transfer insurance with $1/$1 limits starts around $3,500 plus tax. We generally write these on a multi year term basis and will blanket multiple properties onto one policy if the insured has such an exposure thus reducing down the per location costs and spreading their exposure over all of their properties. Property Transfer policies are an excellent strategy to use on foreclosure properties.

Using the new law and environmental insurance as the door opener / wedge, sets you up to sell other P&C insurance to the commercial property buyer or professional.

Premium is based upon several factors the most important is quality Phase I and / or Phase II site assessments which will give the information the underwriters are looking for in order to rate a property. Some of the main factors affecting the premium are size of property, past use of property, current or future use of property, neighbors, any past contamination on the property or surrounding properties….

As for who pays for the insurance and who is covered that is negotiated in the purchase agreement and varies.

I have attached an application you can use for your insured and please contact Parker or myself to strategize in more detail on how this new Washington law can drive your sales.

We are currently working on an oil and gas distributor that is written with the direct writer Federated Insurance. As most of you know Federated has a special program for this class of business. What is interesting on the account we are working on is how poorly written the pollution coverage is that is placed through Zurich.

I am not saying this is the case with all of the business written with Federated and Zurich but it is worth your marketing time to explore this opportunity if you want to write this class of business.

What we discovered on the account ERMI is working on is that it is written on a sudden and accidental basis, not sudden and gradual.

The sudden and accidental Zurich policy basically says at the insured’s expense they have to prove that the pollution event commenced at a specific time and date during the term of coverage. The pollution event must be discovered by the insured within 7 days of COMMENCEMENT and has to be reported no later than 30 days after being discovered by the insured. If there is a factual disagreement about the pollution event condition the burden of proof rests with the insured at their expense. Zurich has no obligation to defend any claim or pay any loss until they have accepted the insured’s proof.

Also any above ground storage tanks over 110 gallons must be listed on the policy in order for there to be coverage.

The Zurich policy also does not cover natural resources damages caused by MTBE, TBA, Ethanol, TAME, ETBE or DIPE.

ERMI can assist you in writing the site specific pollution coverage, storage tanks and full auto coverage including pollution. If you have standard P&C carriers that can write the rest of the coverage needed by this class of business I feel there is a great opportunity to write business that has this very limited pollution coverage through Zurich.

Give me a call so we can strategize in more detail on how ERMI can assist you to drive our growth and profits.

ERMI, so much more than just a wholesaler.

What is a pollutant? Any material, substance, product, etc… which is introduced into an environment for other than its intended use / purpose. Fresh water, cheese, and milk have all been classified as pollutants by Insurance Carriers under various circumstances. What pollutants are impacting your clients?

Ever y business is impacted by environmental exposures… If you are not discussing environmental insurance with your clients, when they experience an environmental loss your E&O insurance may be the only coverage they have.

For more than 20 years environmental Risk Managers, Inc. (eRMI) staff of certified environmental Strategist™
has assisted retail insurance agents with their client’s environmental insurance needs. You get paid the same
commission if you go direct to the market place or work through eRMI, which means for those agents that work with eRMI, we become another source of revenue.

We have established relationships with the major carriers offering pollution coverage, unsurpassed knowledge of the marketplace, and the capabilities to handle everything from your average small business to Fortune 500 companies. eRMI has the knowledge, experience and resources necessary to assist you in managing your clients needs, and adding value to your daily operations while becoming your trusted business partner.

Environmental Coverage’s eRMI can assist you with

• Environmental Impairment liability Coverage – site specific (EIL)
• General Liability and / or Products Pollution
• Contractors Pollution Coverage (CPL)
• Professional Liability Coverage (E&O)
• Property Transfer Coverage
• Secured Creditor Coverage
• Surety
• Transportation Pollution Liability (TPL)
• Umbrella/Excess Coverage Including pollution
• Underground and Above Ground Storage Tanks (UST or AST)
• Clean up cost cap coverage
• Closure and post closure care
• Risk Transfer / Risk Funding
• Workers compensation

Risk Management, Education and Insurance Strategies/Consulting

• Environmental Risk Assessments
• Current coverage analysis with proper coverage recommendations
• Strategy sessions with Agents and Insured’s
• Education via Webinars, Live Seminars, Onsite consulting, Email’s of environmental news/updates, and teleconferences

eRMI, is much more than just a wholesaler! For more information on how eRMI can assist you please contact

Parker Bunbury – Email: parkerbunbury@gmail.com Phone: 231-218-1118 www.environmentalriskmanagers.com

Below is a list of Environmental Hot Topics we know impact a variety of your insured’s and prospects. I would like to schedule a time of about 20 minutes where I can call and review this with you. The purpose of the call is to point out areas of environmental opportunity we have identified in assisting you to sell more environmental liability insurance, Through this process it will afford you another value added service you can offer your client’s and prospects.

If you would like to set the call up to take place during one of your sales meetings so your commercial people can all be on the same page about the environmental issues impacting your clients and prospects that has also proven to be an effective strategy.

Attached is a marketing flyer outlining the environmental insurance, risk management and educational services we have developed to assist you.

Please let us know who we can assist you to drive your growth and profits.

ERMI Environmental Risk Management Hot Topics

• What is a Pollutant: A material, substance or product that gets introduced into an environment for other than it intended use or purpose. Fresh Water / Cheese / Milk
• Sustainability begins with Risk Management: FOB point of shipment / delivery
• Repair, Renovation & Painting (RRP): For contractors and property owners, housing, schools, structures built before 1978. Children 6 years or younger (two day a week, three hours at a time). Fines up to $32,500 per day / per violation
• Vapor Intrusion (ASTM 2600): Third party/s causing environmental contamination on your property. Minimum 2 mile radius. http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/
• Storm Water Runoff: Home Depot / Wal-mart / State Farm
• Illicit Abandonment
• Vandalism
• Brownfields
• Mergers & Acquisitions / Deed Restrictions / Title Insurance
• Environmental Risk Assessments: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
• Three benefits of Environmental Liability Insurance
  1. Defense Coverage
  2. Specialists to assist in handling the claim
  3. Third party bodily injury / property damage / business interruption
• Products pollution coverage
• Once the insured is educated they can make an informed decision which comes down to: They can transfer their risk for fractions of a cent on the dollar or wait until an environmental loss occurs and spend 100 cents on the dollar out of their own pocket. After they pay for their loss, if they are still in business they can come back to you and buy a pollution policy.

Marketing tips:

• Prospect for new business 90 days after renewal
• Inspect vendors of clients to generate new prospects
• Do master policy for industrial park

ERMI, so much more than just a wholesaler!

EPA will propose rule to protect waterways by reducing mercury from dental offices / existing technology is available to capture dental mercury (DC)
Source: US EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced it intends to propose a rule to reduce mercury waste from dental offices. Dental amalgams, or fillings containing mercury, account for 3.7 tons of mercury discharged from dental offices each year. The mercury waste results when old mercury fillings are replaced with new ones. The mercury in dental fillings is flushed into chair-side drains and enters the wastewater systems, making its way into the environment through discharges to rivers and lakes, incineration or land application of sewage sludge. Mercury released through amalgam discharges can be easily managed and prevented.

EPA expects to propose a rule next year and finalize it in 2012. Dental offices will be able to use existing technology to meet the proposed requirements. Amalgam separators can separate out 95 percent of the mercury normally discharged to the local waste treatment plant. The separator captures the mercury, which is then recycled and reused.

Until the rule is final, EPA encourages dental offices to voluntarily install amalgam separators. Twelve states and several municipalities already require the installation of amalgam separators in dental offices.

Approximately 50 percent of mercury entering local waste treatment plants comes from dental amalgam waste. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can change elemental mercury into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish, shellfish and animals that eat fish.

Fish and shellfish are the main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. Methylmercury can damage children’s developing brains and nervous systems even before they are born.

More information on mercury from dental offices: water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/dental/index.cfm
More information on mercury and the environment: www.epa.gov/mercury/index.html

September 10, 2010
Information on hydraulic fracturing chemicals is key to agency study of potential impacts on drinking water

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it has issued voluntary information requests to nine natural gas service companies regarding the process known as hydraulic fracturing. The data requested is integral to a broad scientific study now underway by EPA, which Congress in 2009 directed the agency to conduct to determine whether hydraulic fracturing has an impact on drinking water and the public health of Americans living in the vicinity of hydraulic fracturing wells.

In making the requests of the nine leading national and regional hydraulic fracturing service providers – BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, PRC, Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford – EPA is seeking information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at their hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of sites where fracturing has been conducted. This information will be used as the basis for gathering further detailed information on a representative selection of sites.

“This scientifically rigorous study will help us understand the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water – a concern that has been raised by Congress and the American people. By sharing information about the chemicals and methods they are using, these companies will help us make a thorough and efficient review of hydraulic fracturing and determine the best path forward,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Natural gas is an important part of our nation’s energy future, and it’s critical that the extraction of this valuable natural resource does not come at the expense of safe water and healthy communities. EPA will do everything in its power, as it is obligated to do, to protect the health of the American people and will respond to demonstrated threats while the study is underway.”

Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are injected at high pressures to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations. The process creates fractures in formations such as shale rock, allowing natural gas or oil to escape into the well and be recovered. During the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing has expanded across much of the country.

EPA announced in March that it will study the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water. To solicit input on the scope of the study, EPA is holding a series of public meetings in major oil and gas production regions to hear from citizens, independent experts and industry. The initial results of the study will be announced in late 2012. EPA will identify additional information for industry to provide – including information on fluid disposal practices and geological features – that will help EPA carry out the study.

EPA has requested the information be provided on a voluntary basis within 30 days, andhas asked the companies to respond within seven days to inform the agency whether they will provide all of the information sought. The data being sought by the agency is similar to information that has already been provided separately to Congress by the industry. Therefore, EPA expects the companies to cooperate with these voluntary requests. If not, EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study.

EPA is currently working with state and local governments who play an important role in overseeing and regulating fracturing operations and are at the forefront of protecting local air and water quality from adverse impacts.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Releases New Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Selecting Safe School Locations / EPA provides new tools for communities making school siting decisions

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released draft voluntary guidelines to help communities protect the health of students and staff from environmental threats when selecting new locations for schools.

More than 1,900 new schools serving approximately 1.2 million children and costing more than $13 billion opened in the 2008-2009 school year. Major investments in our children’s schools can be compromised if environmental hazards are not fully understood prior to selecting a school site. The voluntary guidelines also provide tools to help communities ensure that new locations for schools are accessible to the students they are intended to serve.

“EPA is offering tools to local officials and community residents looking to build schools that foster healthy, productive learning environments,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This guidance will help address the pressing environmental issues that parents, school boards and local residents often consider when making investments in their local schools. By offering guidance on long-term environmental and health concerns, it will also help local communities plan ahead and reduce the risk of costly changes down the road.”

The potential impacts on children’s health and education, as well as the damage to the community when school environmental hazards are later identified, are significant. In some cases, schools have been closed and in other cases have undergone costly remediation.

The new draft voluntary guidelines will give local communities tools to help them consider environmental health issues in establishing school site selection criteria and in conducting effective environmental reviews of potential school sites. The draft guidelines recommend involving the public in the site selection process from the beginning to help ensure community support for these decisions.

EPA developed the draft guidelines in consultation with other federal agencies, states, school districts, community organizations, health care professionals, teachers, as well as environmental justice leaders, and children’s health and environmental groups, among others.

The draft school siting guidelines are being made available for public comment for 90 days. Comments will be accepted until 4 pm EST on February 18, 2011.

To view and comment on the draft guidelines: http://epaschoolsiting.icfi.com/

More information on the draft school siting guidelines and on protecting children’s health in existing schools: http://epa.gov/schools/

Pretty soon companies’ toxic release data may be available to the public before the pollution is actually released into the environment. Unlikely, but the EPA is getting faster each year at making public the data it has collected from companies’ Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data sheets.

Issued the same month it was collected, the EPA has published the latest data on industrial releases and transfers of toxic chemicals in the United States between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2009. This year, the agency made TRI data available within weeks of the reporting deadline through its website and online tools TRI Explorer and Envirofacts. The database contains environmental release and transfer data on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories reported to the agency by more than 21,000 industrial and other
facilities.

“It is vital that every community has access to information that impacts their health and environment,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “The data we’re releasing provides critical insights about pollution and polluters in the places where people live, work, play and learn. Making that knowledge available is the first step in empowering communities to protect the environment in their areas.”

Because the initial TRI data are not final, concern has been growing among industry since the early reporting began under Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Without a proper baseline, the public may misinterpret the data and risk unfair judgment of the companies; a negative press release is hard to walk back. The EPA explained in its Federal Register notice that it took this into account, but that significant changes between initial TRI data and the final report have been miniscule, and that the benefits of early warning to the public outweigh concerns of misinformation.

The preliminary dataset allows communities to find out about releases and transfers of chemicals at the local level. Examples of industries that report to TRI include manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities among others. Facilities must report their data by July 1 of each year.

The preliminary dataset includes more than 80 percent of the data expected to be reported for 2009. The EPA will continue to process paper submissions, late submissions, and to resolve issues with the electronic submissions. The agency will update the dataset in August and again in September so citizens will have complete access to the information. The EPA said it encourages the public to review and analyze the data while the agency conducts its own analysis, which will be published later this year.

More information on the data: www.epa.gov/tri