Blog

environmental Strategist, between the lines: At ERMI we point out that every business is impacted by environmental exposures. Your agency could easily experience the exposure listed in the article below.

Most insurance agencies I have visited use fluorescent light bulbs. When those bulbs burn out they are classified as a hazardous waste (they contain mercury) and need to be properly disposed of.

Under Federal law you own your waste from cradle to grave, which means if the company you use to dispose of your fluorescent lights does not manage the disposal of your lights correctly you can be liable to pay additional costs.

How many client’s do you have that use fluorescent light bulbs? Are their waste bulbs being handled properly? As your client’s professional risk manager it’s your job to know.

One way I generated new client’s as a retail insurance agent was to inspect the vendors my clients did business with. Whoever used this light bulb recycling company obviously was working with an insurance agent/s that did not do their job. This article points out a few prospects to call on (city of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago and Commonwealth Edison)

Sustainability begins with risk management. One risk management option in dealing with your waste fluorescent bulbs is to have a bulb recycling company come to your facility and recycle them onsite. This way you do not generate a waste manifest and your future liability is almost non-existent.

You must know who you are doing business with because I can tell you story after story where a vendor caused an environmental liability for a client because the vendor did not do their job properly. Virtually every client you do business with uses vendors which means virtually every client you do business with needs their professional risk manager to do their job and find out, who they are doing business with?

EPA fines light bulb recycler $743,000

Agency says firm left Riverdale warehouse contaminated with mercury
By Ray Gibson, Tribune reporter
May 6, 2010

Federal officials are seeking a $743,000 fine against a recycling business that left a Riverdale warehouse contaminated with high levels of poisonous mercury from fluorescent light bulbs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday.

The proposed fine against River Shannon Recycling comes after the village of Riverdale shut down the operation in 2008. It had operated without the necessary permits for two years in the village and had thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, some of which were broken, improperly stored in the facility.

In seeking the large fine, the EPA said the warehouse was actually a hazardous waste site and operated without the required permit.

Last month, the Illinois attorney general’s office won an $88,000 judgment against the firm in Cook County Circuit Court for its alleged misuse of two economic development state grants that were supposed to be used to expand the company’s recycling business.

River Shannon owner Laurence Kelly, who has until May 24 to request a formal hearing on the EPA complaint, issued a statement on Thursday but declined to discuss details.

“We look forward to this matter being resolved,” Kelly said. “We are confident we will be vindicated in the end.”

While River Shannon was operating, among its clients were the city of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago and Commonwealth Edison. The university paid the firm $66,000 until reports about the company’s questionable operation were reported by the Tribune, and then all three clients stopped doing business with the company.

Kelly was convicted in federal court in 1981 for paying bribes to Cook County tax authorities. He served a three-year prison term.

Meanwhile, a federal grand jury has been investigating the firm’s operations, according to sources with knowledge of the probe.

The investigation follows the Tribune reports that the former owner of the warehouse, who is imprisoned on federal fraud charges, said he paid bribes in order to allow the recycling operation to start up.

Lee Anglin, who has pleaded no contest to the fraud charges, said he was questioned at the Metropolitan Correctional Center by FBI agents.

rgibson@tribune.com

EPA Construction Stormwater Rule Takes Effect February 1, 2010
By Meline MacCurdy and Russell Prugh

EPA has issued a long-awaited final stormwater rule, impacting nearly every construction and development project in the United States. The rule, published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2009, for the first time imposes an enforceable numeric limit on stormwater discharges from large construction sites, requires monitoring to ensure compliance with the numeric limit, and requires nearly all construction sites to implement a range of erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention measures. While the non-numeric effluent limitations will apply to every construction site over one acre when the rule takes effect on February 1, 2010, the numeric limit and associated monitoring requirements applicable to large sites will be phased in over four years.

According to EPA, the rule will impact approximately 82,000 firms within the construction and development (“C&D”) category, including residential and commercial construction and heavy and civil engineering firms,[1] and will cost the industry nearly $1 billion in new compliance costs.[2] While massive, the cost of the new requirements are less than were estimated under the proposed rule, as a result of changes made during the rulemaking process.

The Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act[3] (“CWA”) prohibits discharges of pollutants by any person from point sources into waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.[4] NPDES permits “place limits on the type and quantity of pollutants that can be released into the Nation’s waters, and must set forth effluent limitations,”[5] which are specific restrictions on the quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological or other constituents, such as sediment or turbidity, discharged into navigable waters from point sources.[6] EPA’s effluent limitations are incorporated into NPDES permits when the permits are issued. NPDES permits are generally issued by state agencies, because most states have sought and received NPDES permitting authority from EPA.[7] EPA’s national regulations set a floor for state NPDES permits, but states can include requirements that are more stringent than the national standards.

The specific effluent limitations incorporated into NPDES permits are established using more general effluent
limitations guidelines (“ELGs”) and new source performance standards (“NSPSs”).[8] ELGs impose technology-
based requirements for categories of point source dischargers. ELGs apply to existing sources of pollution and NSPSs apply to “new sources.”[9]

Background to the Final Rule

Under EPA’s current NPDES regulations, dischargers engaged in construction activity are required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit if the activity will result in the disturbance of a land area of one acre or greater.[10] While construction activity dischargers make up the largest category of NPDES permits, the current federal guidelines do not provide national performance standards or monitoring requirements for this category of dischargers.[11] That changes with the new rule.

EPA identified the construction industry as a point source category for which it intended to promulgate rules regarding ELGs and NSPSs back in 2000.[12] EPA issued a proposed rule in 2002 that contained several options for addressing stormwater discharges from construction sites, including ELGs and NSPSs.[13] However, in 2004, EPA opted not to promulgate ELGs for the construction industry, and instead relied on “the range of existing programs, regulations, and initiatives” at the federal, state, and local levels.[14] In response to EPA’s rulemaking decision, environmental groups filed a complaint to force EPA to promulgate discharge standards and guidelines for the construction industry. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit affirmed an injunction forcing EPA to propose ELGs and NSPSs for the construction industry by December 1, 2008,[15] and promulgate a final rule by December 1, 2009.[16]

Overview of the Final Rule

EPA’s final rule establishes nationally applicable ELGs and NSPSs to NPDES permits covering stormwater
discharges from construction sites, including best management practices (“BMPs”) and a numeric limit for turbidity.

The non-numeric effluent limitations include a range of erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention measures, apply to construction activities that will disturb one acre or greater, and must be incorporated into NPDES permits issued after the rule takes effect.[17] The final rule revises several elements of the non-numeric effluent limitations from the 2008 proposed rule, with the intent to make the requirements applicable to all construction activities. These changes include the elimination of specific requirements, such as the implementation of sediment basins on all large construction sites,[18] and generally responding to the variability of C&D sites with the inclusion of “unless feasible” language in some requirements.[19]

The rule requires implementation of best management practices related to: (1) erosion and sedimentation
controls,[20] (2) soil stabilization controls,[21] and (3) pollution prevention measures.[22] The rule also prohibits discharges from: (1) dewatering activities and concrete washout activities (unless managed by appropriate controls), (2) wastewater from the washout of stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other construction materials, (3) fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance, and (4) soaps or solvents used in vehicle and equipment washing.[23] The rule also requires that discharges from basins or impoundments on a construction site must withdraw water from the surface, unless infeasible.[24]

The rule sets a numeric effluent limitation for turbidity at 280 nephelometric turbidity units (“NTU”) and requires monitoring to ensure that this limitation is met.[25] EPA explained its decision to regulate turbidity using numeric standards based on the fact that turbidity is an “indicator pollutant” that will help to control the discharge of other pollutants, such as metals and nutrients, from construction sites.[26] Turbidity can also be measured in the field, which EPA expects to reduce compliance costs.[27]

In response to comments on the proposed rule, EPA changed the technology basis for BAT and NSPS from active or advanced treatment systems (“ATS”), which consist of poly-assisted clarification followed by filtration, to passive treatment systems (“PTS”), which, as used in the final rule, include practices that rely on settling and filtration to remove sediment, turbidity, and other pollutants.[28] EPA determined that PTS could “provide a high level of turbidity reduction at a significantly lower cost than” ATS.[29]

Unlike the rule’s non-numeric requirements, the turbidity limitation only applies to large construction sites – i.e., sites that will disturb ten acres or more at one time.[30] In addition, the numeric limitation will be implemented in two phases. First, construction sites that disturb twenty or more acres of land at one time are required to sample and comply with the turbidity limitation within eighteen months of the effective date of the final rule (i.e., by August 1, 2011).[31] Second, construction sites that disturb ten or more acres at one time are required to sample and comply with the turbidity limitation within four years of the effective date of the rule (i.e., by February 2, 2014).[32]

The 280 NTU turbidity limit is expressed as a maximum daily limitation, meaning that the averages of the samples taken over the course of a day may not exceed the maximum daily amount. This allows for temporary discharges of stormwater that exceed the turbidity requirement (such as discharges during an intense period of rainfall).[33] While the final rule leaves the specific monitoring requirements in the NPDES construction stormwater permits to the states, EPA has indicated that it expects at least three samples per day from the discharge point while discharges are occurring.[34] The rule also exempts discharges resulting from a storm event that is larger than the local two-year, twenty-four hour storm.[35]

Impacts on Existing State Programs

All NPDES permitting authorities will be required to incorporate the rule into their construction stormwater permits, but the impact of the changes will depend on existing state and local requirements. In many cases, the rule is more restrictive than current stormwater requirements, which will impose significant burdens on permitting authorities and permittees. For example, EPA acknowledges that the monitoring requirements will generally “require an additional layer of management practices and/or treatment above what most state and local programs are currently requiring,”[36] although some states have been imposing monitoring requirements on construction operators in their permits for some time.[37] Additionally, although the rule does not require the use of a particular technology for meeting the numeric limitation, permitting authorities and permittees will need to develop and select appropriate management practices or technologies for meeting the numeric limitations. Although the final rule responds to many primary concerns and is expected to cost less than the proposed rule, the final rule comes at an economically difficult time for an already-strained construction industry.

For more information on stormwater permiting, please contact Meli MacCurdy, Russell Prugh or any other member of Marten Law’s Permitting and Environmental Review practice group.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: This is an environmental exposure not just for the contractor applying the sealant material but also for the property owner and manufacturer. Storm water runoff is a very real environmental exposure for any property owner where it can rain and / or snow. In the past few years both Home Depot and Wal-Mart paid multimillion dollar fines for storm water runoff from their construction sites.

Coal Tar Sealant Largest Source of PAHs in Lakes
Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Coal-tar-based pavement sealant is the largest source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in 40 urban lakes studied by the U.S. Geological Survey. PAHs are an environmental health concern because several are probable human carcinogens, they are toxic to fish and other aquatic life, and their concentrations have been increasing in urban lakes in recent decades.

Coal-tar-based pavement sealant is the black, shiny substance sprayed or painted on many parking lots, driveways, and playgrounds. USGS scientists evaluated the contribution of PAHs from many different sources to lakes in cities from Anchorage, Alaska, to Orlando, Fla. The full report can be found in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

On average, coal-tar-based sealcoat accounted for one-half of all PAHs in the lakes, while vehicle-related sources accounted for about one-quarter. Lakes with a large contribution of PAHs from sealcoat tended to have high PAH concentrations, in many cases at levels that can be harmful to aquatic life. Analysis of historical trends in PAH sources to a subset of the lakes indicates that sealcoat use since the 1960s is the primary cause of increases in PAH concentrations.

“These findings represent a significant advance in our understanding of the sources of these contaminants in streams and lakes,” said USGS scientist Peter Van Metre. “Identifying where contaminants are coming from is the first step in designing effective management strategies.”

Coal tar is made up of at least 50 percent PAHs. Pavement sealants that contain coal tar, therefore, have extremely high levels of PAHs compared to other PAH sources such as vehicle emissions, used motor oil, and tire particles. Small particles of sealcoat are worn off of the surface relatively rapidly, especially in areas of high traffic, and are transported from parking lots and driveways to streams and lakes by storm runoff. Manufacturers recommend resealing surfaces every three to five years. Runoff isn’t the only path by which PAHs are leaving parking lots. A recent USGS study found that use of coal-tar-based sealcoat on parking lots was associated with elevated concentrations of PAHs in house dust.

Sealcoat products are widely used in the U.S., both commercially and by homeowners. The products are commonly applied to commercial parking lots (including strip malls, schools, churches and shopping centers), residential driveways, apartment complexes and playgrounds. The City of Austin, Texas estimates that before a ban on use of coal-tar-based sealcoat in 2006, about 600,000 gallons of sealcoat were applied every year in the city.

Two kinds of sealcoat products are widely used: coal-tar-emulsion based and asphalt-emulsion based. Consumers can determine whether a product contains coal tar by reading the label or asking the company hired to do the pavement application. The coal-tar products have PAH levels about 1,000 times higher than the asphalt products. National use numbers are not available; however, previous research suggests that asphalt-based sealcoat is more commonly used on the West Coast and coal-tar based sealcoat is more commonly used in the Midwest, the South, and the East. The results of the lake study reflect this east-west difference. For example, sealcoat contributes over 80 percent of PAHs in Lake Anne, Va., and PAH concentrations there are about twenty times higher than in Decker Lake, Utah, even though the areas have similar population density and level of urban development. Furthermore, PAH levels in pavement dust from sealcoated parking lots in Va. are about 1,000 times higher than those from sealed parking lots in Utah.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: Share the following with any client’s you have than can be responsible for designing or maintaining storm water systems. The potential liability created through this court decision is probably not covered by your standard insurance program for your impacted client’s. Impacted businesses should take a proactive approach by making sure their ducks are in order.

Design and Management of Stormwater System Enough to Impose CERCLA “Arranger” Liability, District Court Holds
July 14, 2010
Meline MacCurdy

In an apparent first, a federal judge in Washington has held a state agency that manages highway stormwater runoff liable under CERCLA[1] as an “arranger” for disposal of hazardous substances. In United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT),[2] Judge Bryan of the Western District of Washington held WSDOT liable as an “arranger,”[3] because it designed, operated, and maintained the stormwater systems around several major highways that discharge to waterways that are part of a massive Superfund site. The case illustrates that the scope of “arranger” liability under CERCLA remains wide despite the Supreme Court’s 2009 Burlington Northern[4] decision, where the Court limited “arranger” liability to entities that have an “intent to dispose.” That standard was met here, according to Judge Bryan, because designing the stormwater system was “an action directed to a specific purpose” of discharging “the highway runoff into the environment.” The court also declined to rule – at this stage – on the adequacy of WSDOT’s defenses that it complied with Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permits, and that the agency had no ability to control the countless drivers that use the highways. The decision, if upheld and followed, could have serious implications for municipalities and private entities that manage and design stormwater systems.

Conclusion

The WSDOT decision opens the door for CERCLA liability to a potentially broad class of parties, both public and private, that design and operate stormwater systems. Those parties are wise to ensure that they follow their discharge permits to the letter, and retain documentation of this compliance, particularly if the receiving water or its sediments are already contaminated. The decision is also noteworthy as an enlargement of the scope of “arranger” liability at a time when many courts have scaled back that scope in response to the Supreme Court’s Burlington Northern decision. Those cases have generally held that the “intent to dispose” standard under Burlington Northern at least requires a fact-intensive inquiry, and that mere knowledge that a disposal may occur in the design of a product is insufficient to infer such an intent.[15] The WSDOT court’s brief analysis of the Burlington Northern standard stands in stark contrast to those cases, showing that at least some courts will yet continue to expand the scope of CERCLA liability.

For more information on this case, please contact Meline MacCurdy or any other member of Marten Law’s Waste Cleanup practice group.

For complete article go to: http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20100714-cercla-arranger-liability

A survey done to more than 750 top CEOs reveal that 93% regard sustainability as a critical issue to their company’s future success, reports Envido.

www.envido.co.uk 1-020-7199-0090

A major global survey of 750 chief executives undertaken by Accenture in partnership with the UN Global Compact initiative, revealed that 93% believe sustainability is critical to their company’s future success. The majority interviewed appointed the development of environmentally sustainable products and services as a way of driving revenue growth.

According to the survey the main motivation for sustainability strategies has shifted from a desire to impress employees to a more commercially focused interest in generating revenue from green products and services.

The survey revealed nothing short of the beginning of a “new era of sustainability” for the world’s largest firms.

CEOs are looking at sustainability through an innovation lens and a market opportunity lens that just wasn’t there three years ago.

Envido is a leading UK provider of energy, carbon and sustainability solutions for private and public sector organisations.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: I have been talking for years how storms water runoff is a big exposures for any insured you work with that owns property, performs construction, farms, etc.. Here is a simple example to share with your insured’s about a manufacturer that created a storm water problem through their air emissions.

Four years of investigation, natural resource damages, fish consumption warnings, I hope this company has pollution insurance.

Calhoun pollution traced to nearby firm

The chemical that contaminated fish in southwest Minneapolis came via storm water from St. Louis Park.
By TOM MEERSMAN, Star Tribune

State pollution officials have solved a four-year-old mystery about the source of fish contamination in Lake Calhoun.

A St. Louis Park company used a chemical formerly made by 3M, and it entered the southwest Minneapolis lake through a storm water system, said Ralph Pribble, spokesman for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Although the PCA didn’t identify the company, Douglas Corp., which has five manufacturing plants in Minnesota, acknowledged Thursday that air emissions from its St. Louis Park plant may have contributed to the chemical, known as PFOS, being found in the sewer system leading to Lake Calhoun. Company spokesman Blois Olson said the company is cooperating with the investigation.

The contaminant is part of a family of man-made chemicals known as perfluorochemicals (PFCs). Olson said the company, which provides plating services, used the chemical for a “significant” number of years but stopped using it this year at the plant 1 1/2 miles west of the lake. He said the company hasn’t violated any law or permit, noting that the use of PFCs is not regulated under any state or federal law.

A University of Minnesota researcher first detected PFOS in Lake Calhoun’s water in 2004. It was formerly used in Scotchgard and other products. State scientists did additional testing in 2006 and found the chemical both in the water and some fish in 2007.

Early on, researchers couldn’t explain the source of the contamination, because Lake Calhoun is not near any known areas where 3M manufactured or disposed of the chemical.

Minnesota health officials said the lake’s water is no danger to boaters, swimmers, or pets, but they issued a fish consumption advisory in 2007 that remains in effect. It recommends that anglers eat no more than one meal per month of bluegills or crappies from Calhoun, and no more than one meal per week of the same species caught in.

Every Business Is Impacted by Environmental Exposures

On January 13, 2010 USA Today reported that Wal-Mart, Claire’s will pull jewelry from China containing cadmium. USA Today went on to say “Two chain stores are pulling jewelry that lab tests show contained high levels of the heavy metal cadmium. Jewelry and accessories store Claire’s, with nearly 3,000 location, joined Wal-Mart in saying it would stop selling any item cited in an Associated Press investigation of the presence of cadmium in bracelets and charms. Chinese regulators said they will investigate dangerous levels of the toxin in children’s jewelry being exported to the U.S..”

If you are not familiar with Cadmium I offer the following information.

Cadmium

Cadmium (pronounced /ˈkædmiəm/, KAD-mee-əm) is a chemical element. similar to two other metals zinc and mercury.

Cadmium occurs as a minor component in most zinc ores and therefore is a by-product of zinc production. Cadmium was for a long time used as pigment and for corrosion resistant plating on steel. Cadmium compounds were used to stabilize plastic. With the exception of its use in nickel-cadmium batteries, the use of cadmium is generally decreasing in all other applications. This decrease is due to the high toxicity and
carcinogenicity of cadmium and the associated health and environmental concerns.

Toxicity

Cadmium poisoning is an occupational hazard associated with industrial processes such as metal plating and the production of nickel-cadmium batteries, pigments, plastics, and other synthetics. The primary route of exposure in industrial settings is inhalation. Inhalation of cadmium-containing fumes can result initially in metal fume fever but may progress to chemical pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and death.[23]

Cadmium is also a potential environmental hazard. Human exposures to environmental cadmium are primarily the result of the burning of fossil fuels and municipal wastes.[24] However, there have been notable instances of toxicity as the result of long-term exposure to cadmium in contaminated food and water.

Cadmium and several cadmium-containing compounds are known carcinogens and can induce many types of cancer.[26]

Tobacco smoking is the most important single source of cadmium exposure in the general population. It has been estimated that about 10% of the cadmium content of a cigarette is inhaled through smoking. The absorption of cadmium from the lungs is much more effective than that from the gut, and as much as 50% of the cadmium inhaled via cigarette smoke may be absorbed.[27]

On average, smokers have 4-5 times higher blood cadmium concentrations and 2-3 times higher kidney cadmium concentrations than non-smokers. Despite the high cadmium content in cigarette smoke, there seems to be little exposure to cadmium from passive smoking. No significant effect on blood cadmium concentrations could be detected in children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.[28]

Batteries

About three-quarters of all the cadmium is used in batteries, predominantly in rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries. Nickel-cadmium cells have a nominal cell potential of 1.2 V. The cell consists of a positive nickel hydroxide electrode and a negative cadmium electrode plate separated by an alkaline electrolyte (potassium hydroxide). More recent nickel-metal hydride batteries reduce the use of Ni-Cd batteries.

The European Union banned the use of cadmium in electronics in 2004 with several exceptions but reduced the allowed content of cadmium in electronics to 0.002%.

Jewelry

Reports of high levels of cadmium use in children’s jewelry in 2010 led to a US Consumer Product Safety Commission investigation. Twelve percent of the 103 items tested from New York, Ohio, Texas and California contained at least 10 percent cadmium, with a single item test claimed to be 91 percent cadmium.

Other uses

Most of cadmium which is not consumed in battery production is used mainly for cadmium pigments, coatings and plating, and as stabilizers for plastics. Other uses include:

• In electroplating (6% cadmium). Cadmium electroplating is widely used in aircraft industry due to the excellent corrosion resistance of cadmium-plated steel components. Cadmium provides cathodic protection to low-alloyed steels, since it is positioned lower in the galvanic series. The coating is usually passivated by chromate salts. A significant limitation of cadmium plating is hydrogen embrittlement of high-strength steels caused by the electroplating process. Therefore, steel parts heat-treated to tensile strength above 1300 MPa (200 ksi) should be coated by an alternative method (such as special low-embrittlement cadmium electroplating processes or physical vapor deposition).
• In many kinds of solder.
• Cadmium is used as a barrier to control neutrons in nuclear fission.
• Cadmium sulfide (CdS) as a photoconductive surface coating for photocopier drums.
• In paint pigments, cadmium forms various salts, with CdS being the most common. This sulfide is used as a yellow pigment. Cadmium selenide can be used as red pigment, commonly called cadmium red. To painters who work with the pigment, cadmium yellows, oranges, and reds are the most potent colors to use. In fact, during production, these colors are significantly toned down before they are ground with oils and binders, or blended into watercolors, gouaches, acrylics, and other paint and pigment formulations. These pigments are toxic, and it is recommended to use a barrier cream on the hands to prevent absorption through the skin when working with them.

Clinical effects

Acute exposure to cadmium fumes may cause flu like symptoms including chills, fever, and muscle ache sometimes referred to as “the cadmium blues.” Symptoms may resolve after a week if there is no respiratory damage. More severe exposures can cause tracheo-bronchitis, pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. Symptoms of inflammation may start
hours after the exposure and include cough, dryness and irritation of the nose and throat, headache, dizziness, weakness, fever, chills, and chest pain.

Inhaling cadmium-laden dust quickly leads to respiratory tract and kidney problems which can be fatal (often from renal failure). Ingestion of any significant amount of cadmium causes immediate poisoning and damage to the liver and the kidneys. Compounds containing cadmium are also carcinogenic.

The bones become soft (osteomalacia), lose bone mineral density (osteoporosis) and become weaker. This causes the pain in the joints and the back, and also increases the risk of fractures. In extreme cases of cadmium poisoning, mere body weight causes a fracture.

The kidneys lose their function to remove acids from the blood in proximal renal tubular dysfunction. The kidney damage inflicted by cadmium poisoning is irreversible and does not heal over time. The proximal renal tubular dysfunction creates low phosphate levels in the blood (hypophosphatemia), causing muscle weakness and sometimes coma. The dysfunction also causes gout, a form of arthritis due to the accumulation of uric acid crystals in the joints because of high acidity of the blood (hyperuricemia). Another side effect is increased levels of chloride in the blood (hyperchloremia). The kidneys can also shrink up to 30%.

Other patients lose their sense of smell (anosmia).

environmental Strategist, between the lines: Michigan alone has 9,000 leaking underground storage tanks that we know about but do not have the money to clean them up. This means in Michigan at a minimum, we have 9,000 locations that can cause vapor intrusion just from tanks. How many more don’t we know about?

The questions for your property owner is, what if your property is impacted by vapor intrusion and the party at fault does not have the money to clean it up or is no longer in business? Your property owner now owns a contaminated piece of property. A site specific Environmental impairment Liability policy can cover this exposure.

Besides building owners those being sued for vapor intrusion are businesses that can impact a foundation which allows vapors to enter a buildings envelope such as electricians, plumbers, utility contractors, excavation contractors, HVAC contractors, general contractors, architects and engineers….

Environmental Risk Management Tip: For purchasers of property, as a general rule a Phase I environmental assessment will not include Vapor Intrusion (ASTM 2600). Property purchasers performing environmental due diligence should request to have vapor intrusion (ASTM 2600) included as part of their Phase I and / or Phase II environmental assessment/s.

Buildings with Vapor Intrusion Issues Risk Occupants’ Health
Source: Cochrane & Associates, LLC

Vapor intrusion is described by building envelop professionals as what happens when a gaseous substance migrates into a building. Volatile organic compounds and other gases can make their way from contaminated soils and groundwater through cracks in foundations or sewer lines and enter a building. When vapor intrusion occurs it can create an environment that damages structural materials and puts building occupants’ health at risk. Human exposure to vapor intrusion can cause everything from minor irritations such as headaches and nausea, to more significant problems such as cancer or chronic
disease from prolonged exposure to toxic vapors.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that potential health issues associated with vapor intrusion vary and are dependent upon the types and concentrations of chemicals involved. The length of exposure to the chemicals and the overall health of those being exposed are also factors that may determine how vapor intrusion will impact building occupants.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: Vapor intrusion is one of the environmental hot topics we discuss with our agency network because it can impact any property owner. A few years ago ASTM, the society that establishes the guidelines for Phase I and Phase II environmental reports, came out with ASTM 2600 to address vapor intrusion because they understand just how serious an environmental exposure this is for property owners. Vapor intrusion can come from across the street or miles away. What is your property owner’s strategy if a third party causes vapor intrusion and the third party does not have the financial ability to make your insured whole? Environmental insurance policies can cover this exposure.

Buildings with Vapor Intrusion Problems May Pose a Significant Risk to Building Occupants

Vapor intrusion in any structure creates an environment that could damage structural materials and/or put the building’s occupants’ health at risk. Reactions to exposure can range from minor irritations, such as headaches or nausea, to more significant problems including chronic disease. In extreme cases it could even lead to cancer from prolonged exposure.

Vapor intrusion is defined by building consultants as a gaseous substance migrating into a structure. Gases such as radon, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), water vapor, or other gases seeps through cracks in the concrete foundations or sewer lines and enter the building.

According to the EPA, the potential health issues vary and are dependent upon the types and concentrations of the chemicals. The length of exposure to the chemicals and the overall health of those being exposed are additional factors that determine how building occupants will react.

The redevelopment of brownfield sites can also create situations for potential vapor intrusion issues for any new buildings. Brownfield developers must manage environmental risk, especially those due to potential vapor intrusion issues.

environmental Strategist, between the lines: Brownfields for insurance agents are like annuities. Let me expand on this, first you help them with the pollution insurance for financial assurance (refer to attached document) and once they complete the Brownfield, there is a need for P&C insurance products to protect the new development.

A majority of cities and counties have Brownfield redevelopment boards. These boards will post their Brownfield information online and it is an excellent resource for prospecting. You can find online minutes from Brownfield meetings that will list Brownfield projects in your area, developers of the brownfields and all other information you need in order to sell environmental liability insurance.

Brownfields – Americas largest untapped Urban resource

The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) today released a national report on the status of Brownfield sites in 150 American cities. Brownfields are abandoned or underutilized properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by either real or perceived environmental contamination.

The redevelopment of Brownfield’s is a key component to a sustainable community. Cities across the nation have learned to do more with less, but these difficult economic times have made new developments on brownfields even more challenging’ said Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, Chair of the Conference’s Environmental Committee.

‘Congress and EPA’s Brownfields Program has provided tools, but Mayors need additional assistance with the redevelopment of these properties that will create new jobs and preserve city green space.’

Cities also estimated that Brownfield properties comprised of 60,417 acres of land, representing potential new jobs and land tax revenue. More then 120 cities estimated that 3,035 sites have been ‘mothballed,’ which is defined as sites where the current owner has no intention of redeveloping or selling due to environmental concerns. At mothballed sites, owners would prefer to have the land remain idle and unused rather than turn these sites over for development.

Elizabeth (NJ) Mayor J. Christian Bollwage, Co-Chair of the Conference’s Brownfield’s Task Force, commented on the benefits of brownfields development. ‘Cities who were experiencing a redevelopment renaissance and residential boom are now facing economic decline and an increase in foreclosed properties.’

There is still a renewed interest in developing city centers where residents can move closer to their jobs and reduce commuting costs. Brownfield properties are still a value in redevelopment, with an increase in green technology and the reduction of energy costs, cities are finding it easier to redevelop and remediate properties then start from scratch.

‘I believe the program will benefit cities with jobs on land that is already close to the cities core. This is the only way to truly grow in a sustainable manner. To use previously used land and put it back into positive use,’ said Mayor Bollwage.

Other highlights of the survey findings include:

• Over 46 percent of the survey respondents stated that if Brownfield’s were redeveloped, they could realize nearly $688 million to $1.66 billion annually in additional tax revenues.
• 106 cities responded that over 230,223 new jobs could be created on brownfields sites if their brownfield sites were redeveloped, an increase of 39,000 from last year’s report.
• There were 59 cities that reported 75,000 new jobs have already been created from redeveloped Brownfield’s. These jobs include 19,761 pre-development and 55,085 jobs post development.

More than one-half of the cities surveyed reported offering incentives to encourage brownfields redevelopment through tax credits, low interest loans, and infrastructure upgrades. Additionally, the Conference’s survey found that many states are working with cities on Brownfield issues, but few city-state partnerships deal with the issue of sprawl that could result from broad redevelopment.

West Palm Beach (FL) Mayor Lois J. Frankel, Co-Chair of the United States Conference of Mayors Brownfield’s Task Force, explained how brownfields have been a very important part of the city’s growth.

‘Brownfield’s provide a wonderful tool for urban and city center redevelopment. In today’s economy the search for additional resources is imperative and through Brownfield redevelopment additional jobs and a growth in the tax base are two benefits cities can strive for. Communities are reborn and the environment is restored, in many cases, preserving precious green and open space.’ She concluded.

The entire brownfields report will be posted on the Conference’s website at www.usmayors.org.