Blog

  • Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    environmental Strategist, between the lines: I am often asked what a Phase I site assessment entails. The following article does an excellent job of describing not only what comprises a Phase I but also discusses changes taking place with the addition of All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI). Please share this with client’s looking or buy or sell commercial property.

    Phase I – Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)
    By Richard Popino
    Courtesy of Common Sense Solutions, LLC
    Oct. 1, 2009

    Nowadays, real estate mortgage companies often require the execution of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to identify a property’s potential environmental concerns which may affect its value and/or liabilities. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to disclose any Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) associated with the property. It comprises four main activities:

    1. Reviewing records that will help identify RECs connected with the property;
    2. Site Inspections that will help evaluate any potential RECs at the site. These can include building interior and exteriors, public utilities, transformers, septic systems, water wells, underground storage tanks, and other items with the potential for environmental contamination;
    3. Interviews with past and present owners, operators and occupants of the property as well as interviews with state and/or local government officials. This interviews will help gather information about the property history; and
    4. Report Writing which will include all findings, professional’s opinion of the impact of those findings and any remedial recommendations identified as a result of the Phase I ESA. Parties (including recipients of Brownfield grants) who want to seek a defense to Superfund (CERCLA) liability must comply with a number of requirements outlined in CERCLA and the Brownfields Act. The landowner of a contaminated property that qualifies as: “Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers (BFPPs), Contiguous Property Owners (CPOs) and/or Innocent Landowners (ILOs) are entitled to the Landowner Liability Protections. All of them involve, among other requirements, performing ‘All Appropriate Inquiry’ rule (AAI) to determine the potential for environmental liabilities that exist on a property.

    The new AAI rule references the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice 1527-05: ‘Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Process.’ The ASTM 1527 Standard has been the recognized method for conducting real estate environmental assessments since 1993. Compared to the current standard, the new rule will require:

    • A broader scope of environmental inquiry;
    • The Environmental Professional preparing the environmental assessment to have specific educational and experience requirements;
    • Extensive reliance on the Environmental Professional’s judgment;
    • Users of the property (i.e., seeking the Landowner Liability Protections) to share certain types of information with the Environmental Professional;
    • Identification of data gaps, a description of the efforts to resolve them, and an opinion about the impact of the data gaps on the ability to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances;
    • The Environmental Professional to express written opinions about the thoroughness and reliability of the data gathered in the AAI process;
    • The Environmental Professional to make declarations in the due diligence report regarding credentials and qualifications; and
    • Comparison of the purchase price to the value of the property if the property was not contaminated
    Standard Practice 1527-05: ‘Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
    Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Process.’ The ASTM 1527 Standard has been
    the recognized method for conducting real estate environmental assessments since 1993.
    Compared to the current standard, the new rule will require:
  • Easier detection of pollution and impact in rivers

    environmental Strategist, between the lines: This will be coming to the United States which means for any business with exposure to storm water runoff (land owners, contractors, municipalities, schools, golf courses, resorts, agriculture….), now would be an excellent time to buy pollution insurance.

    Pesticides – Easier detection of pollution and impact in rivers
    Source: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ
    Sep. 8, 2009

    The long-term effects of pesticides on living organisms in rivers and on water quality can now be assessed more easily. Researchers from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) have developed a tool that can estimate the harmful effect of pesticides, such as those flushed into rivers and streams from agricultural land, within minutes. ‘It used to be very difficult to detect which chronic effects occur,’ explains Dr Matthias Liess, head of the UFZ’s System Ecotoxicology Department. In their new approach, the Helmholtz researchers exploit the fact that pesticides cause characteristic changes to the composition of the life community that is affected.

    ‘You just need to find out which living creatures, e.g. insects and crabs, are found at a certain point along the river and in what numbers,’ Liess explains. The authorities responsible for water management usually have such data available, he adds. Liess and his colleagues have now set up a Web application where this data can be entered and evaluated to show immediately how high the level of pollution in the rivers under investigation actually is. Users download an Excel table from the http://www.systemecology.eu/SPEAR/Start.html website and then enter the numbers of each kind of organism found at each sampling site. Once the table is complete it is fed into the ‘SPEAR calculator’ and the user enters the region in which the samples were taken.The calculator immediately shows what the water quality in the area in question is like. Regional data is currently available for Germany, France, Finland and Western Siberia, but the system has also been tested in the UK and in Australia. There is no charge for using the service.

    Liess believes the authorities can use the calculation results to take suitable steps to reduce pesticide pollution of rivers. ‘But our tool can do more than just identify problem areas,’ the Helmholtz scientist stresses. It also indicates where unpolluted stretches of river are compensating for the effect of the pollution. This is extremely important because it can show when conservation methods have been successful. Another advantage of the new tool is that in many cases, complex, expensive chemical analyses will no longer be necessary.

  • Pesticide exposure found to increase risk

    Study finds exposure may have occurred years before symptoms appear
    By Mark Wheeler
    4/20/2009

    The fertile soil of California’s Central Valley has long made it famous as one of the nation’s prime crop-growing regions. But it’s not just the soil that allows for such productivity. Crops like potatoes, dry beans and tomatoes have long been protected from bugs and weeds by the fungicide maneb and the herbicide paraquat.

    Scientists know that in animal models and cell cultures, such pesticides trigger a neurodegenerative process that leads to Parkinson’s disease. Now, researchers at UCLA provide the first evidence for a similar process in humans.

    In a new epidemiological study of Central Valley residents who have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, researchers found that years of exposure to the combination of these two pesticides increased the risk of Parkinson’s by 75 percent. Further, for people 60 years old or younger diagnosed with Parkinson’s, earlier exposure had increased their risk for the disease by as much as four- to six-fold.

    Reporting in the April 15 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, Beate Ritz, professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, and Sadie Costello, a former doctoral student at UCLA who is now at the University of California, Berkeley, found that Central Valley residents who lived within 500 meters of fields sprayed between 1974 and 1999 had a 75-percent increased risk for Parkinson’s.

    In addition, people who were diagnosed with Parkinson’s at age 60 or younger were found to have been at much higher risk because they had been exposed to maneb, paraquat or both in combination between 1974 and 1989, years when they would have been children, teens or young adults.

    The researchers enrolled 368 longtime residents diagnosed with Parkinson’s and 341 others as a control group.

    Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that often impairs motor skills, speech and other functions. It has been reported to occur at high rates among farmers and in rural populations, contributing to the hypothesis that agricultural pesticides may be partially responsible.

    Until now, however, data on human exposure has been unavailable, largely because it has been too hard to measure an individual’s environmental exposure to any specific pesticide.

    “Because pesticides applied from the air or ground may drift from their intended treatment sites — with measurable concentrations subsequently detected in the air, in plants and in animals up to several hundred meters from application sites — accurate methods of estimating environmental exposures in rural communities have long been sorely needed,” said Ritz, the study’s senior author and vice chair of the School of Public Health’s epidemiology department.

    So Ritz, Costello and colleague Myles Cockburn from the University of Southern California, developed a geographic information system–based tool that estimated human exposure to pesticides applied to agricultural crops. This GIS tool combined land-use maps and pesticide-use reporting data from the state of California. Each pesticide-use record includes the name of the pesticide’s active ingredient, the amount applied, the crop, the acreage of the field, the application method and the date of application.

    Research subjects were recruited between 1998 to 2007; telephone interviews were conducted to obtain their demographic and exposure information. Detailed residential history forms were mailed to subjects in advance of their interviews and were reviewed in person or over the phone. The researchers recorded and added lifetime residential histories and estimated ambient exposures into the system for all historical addresses at which participants had resided between 1974 and 1999, the period covered by the pesticide-
    use data.

    “The results confirmed two previous observations from animal studies,” Ritz said. “One, that exposure to multiple chemicals may increase the effect of each chemical. That’s important, since humans are often exposed to more than one pesticide in the environment. And second, that the timing of exposure is also important.”

    Ritz noted that this is the first epidemiological study to provide strong evidence that maneb and paraquat act synergistically to become neurotoxic and strongly increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease in humans.

    Of particular concern, Ritz said, and consistent with other theories regarding the progression of Parkinson’s pathology, is that the data “suggests that the critical window of exposure to toxicants may have occurred years before the onset of motor symptoms when a diagnosis of Parkinson’s is made.”

    In addition to Ritz and first author Costello, study authors included Jeff Bronstein, UCLA professor of neurology, and Xinbo Zhang of USC. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    The research was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program. In addition, initial pilot funding was provided by the American Parkinson Disease Association.

    The UCLA School of Public Health is dedicated to enhancing the public’s health by conducting innovative research, training future leaders and health professionals, translating research into policy and practice, and serving local, national and international communities.

  • Oil Contaminates Des Plaines River

    environmental Strategist, between the lines: Do you have any client’s with holding /
    storage tanks? This loss could be covered under a pollution policy. I wonder how much
    the Coast Guard and emergency response contractors charge to clean up 6,000 gallons
    from three miles of river near Chicago? I wonder how much the business interruption
    costs might be for the boat and barge traffic that had to stop their operations while clean
    up took place. I wonder how much it cost to clean up the 60,000 gallons that did not
    make it to the river? I wonder how much damage 65,000 gallons can do to third party
    properties? I wonder if they had a plan prepared to coordinate claims management
    (emergency response contractors, communications, public relations, government
    reporting, financial management…)? I wonder if natural resources were damaged? I
    wonder how much they will have to spend on legal fees for defense costs? I wonder ……?
    A pollution policy will cover all of this and it costs your client’s 10ths of a cent on the
    dollar versus self insuring and paying 100 cents on the dollar out of their own pocket.
    What makes better business sense to you? I wonder what option makes better business
    sense to your client’s? Have you asked?
    The good news for Caterpillar from the report is they do not have to worry about any
    third party claims for bodily injury.

    environmental Strategist, between the lines: Do you have any client’s with holding / storage tanks? This loss could be covered under a pollution policy. I wonder how much the Coast Guard and emergency response contractors charge to clean up 6,000 gallons from three miles of river near Chicago? I wonder how much the business interruption costs might be for the boat and barge traffic that had to stop their operations while clean up took place. I wonder how much it cost to clean up the 60,000 gallons that did not make it to the river? I wonder how much damage 65,000 gallons can do to third party properties? I wonder if they had a plan prepared to coordinate claims management (emergency response contractors, communications, public relations, government reporting, financial management…)? I wonder if natural resources were damaged? I wonder how much they will have to spend on legal fees for defense costs? I wonder ……?

    A pollution policy will cover all of this and it costs your client’s 10ths of a cent on the dollar versus self insuring and paying 100 cents on the dollar out of their own pocket. What makes better business sense to you? I wonder what option makes better business sense to your client’s? Have you asked?

    The good news for Caterpillar from the report is they do not have to worry about any third party claims for bodily injury.

    Oil Contaminates Des Plaines River

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    February 9, 2009
    ROCKDALE, Ill. (AP) — A holding tank at a Caterpillar facility in southwest suburban

    Chicago broke open early Sunday morning, spilling about 65,000 gallons of oil sludge and contaminating a three-mile section of the Des Plaines River, officials said. “It is being contained, and there is no evidence of a fish kill or harm to water fowl,” Maggie Carson, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, said by e-mail.

    Most of the sludge spilled on land, but 6,000 gallons seeped into the Des Plaines River, Petty Officer William Mitchell of the Coast Guard said. Officer Mitchell said the oil waste poses no risk to human health.

    The Coast Guard also said barge and boat traffic along the river had been stopped.

  • New Mexico Dairy Pollution Sparks Manure War

    The picture on many milk cartons shows cows grazing on a pasture next to a country barn and a
    silo — but the reality is very different.
    More and more milk comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where large herds
    live in feedlots, awaiting their thrice-daily trip to the milking barn. A factory farm with 2,000 cows
    produces as much sewage as a small city, yet there’s no treatment plant.
    Across the country, big dairies are coming under increased criticism for polluting the air and the
    water. In New Mexico, they’re in the midst of a manure war.
    Manure Management
    Everyday, an average cow produces six to seven gallons of milk and 18 gallons of manure. New
    Mexico has 300,000 milk cows. That totals 5.4 million gallons of manure in the state every day.
    It’s enough to fill up nine Olympic-size pools. Every single day.
    Dealing with the waste — so-called “manure management” — is the dairy industry’s greatest
    environmental challenge.
    Farms dispose of waste in two ways.
    First, workers hose the muck off the concrete floor of a milking barn, and it flows into a plastic- or
    clay-lined lagoon where the liquid evaporates.
    Second, waste from the feedlot where the cows live is collected and used as fertilizer for grain
    crops.
    But the New Mexico Environment Department reports that two-thirds of the state’s 150 dairies are
    contaminating groundwater with excess nitrogen from cattle excrement. Either the lagoons are
    leaking, or manure is being applied too heavily on farmland.
    “As we get more and more monitoring data, what we see is that more and more dairies have
    contamination underneath them. So something isn’t working about those facilities,” says Marcy

    The picture on many milk cartons shows cows grazing on a pasture next to a country barn and a silo — but the reality is very different.

    More and more milk comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where large herds live in feedlots, awaiting their thrice-daily trip to the milking barn. A factory farm with 2,000 cows produces as much sewage as a small city, yet there’s no treatment plant.

    Across the country, big dairies are coming under increased criticism for polluting the air and the water. In New Mexico, they’re in the midst of a manure war.

    Manure Management

    Everyday, an average cow produces six to seven gallons of milk and 18 gallons of manure. New Mexico has 300,000 milk cows. That totals 5.4 million gallons of manure in the state every day.

    It’s enough to fill up nine Olympic-size pools. Every single day.

    Dealing with the waste — so-called “manure management” — is the dairy industry’s greatest environmental challenge.

    Farms dispose of waste in two ways.

    First, workers hose the muck off the concrete floor of a milking barn, and it flows into a plastic or clay-lined lagoon where the liquid evaporates.

    Second, waste from the feedlot where the cows live is collected and used as fertilizer for grain crops.

    But the New Mexico Environment Department reports that two-thirds of the state’s 150 dairies are contaminating groundwater with excess nitrogen from cattle excrement. Either the lagoons are leaking, or manure is being applied too heavily on farmland.

    “As we get more and more monitoring data, what we see is that more and more dairies have contamination underneath them. So something isn’t working about those facilities,” says Marcy Leavitt, director of the department’s Water and Wastewater Division.

    The problem is worsened by the tendency of large dairies to cluster together.

    Dairy Row

    On Dairy Row along Interstate 10 between Las Cruces, N.M., and El Paso, Texas, more than 30,000 cows live in 11 farms located one after the other.

    In the past four years, the EPA has repeatedly cited these dairies for violating the Clean Water Act because manure-laced stormwater was washing into tributaries of the Rio Grande.

    “You hear it often in community meetings. People describe that maybe five, six, seven years ago they could go out in front of their home and enjoy the afternoon, eat some food,” says community organizer Arturo Uribe, who lives in Mesquite, Texas, which is in the middle of Dairy Row. “But now what these folks are saying is when they go out there, there’s too many flies.”

    Even more serious than odor and flies is the threat to the watershed. In the town of Dexter, in southeastern New Mexico, a dozen residential homes are surrounded by sprawling dairies on three sides.

    Homeowner Herbie Rodriguez says he has been buying five-gallon bottles of water to drink and cook with, though his family still washes with contaminated well water.

    “We were told that we couldn’t drink the water because it’s contaminated,” Rodriguez says. “On a white, brand-new T-shirt, you can wash it in the water, brand-new, it would come out brownish, beige. That’s how you could tell how bad the water was.”

    The trend in the dairy industry, like the rest of commodity agriculture, is toward fewer and larger farms, which concentrates more manure in smaller geographic areas. Citizens are reporting dairies contaminating ground and surface water across the nation — in the Yakima Valley in

    Washington; Brown County in Wisconsin; Hudson, Mich.; and now Dexter, N.M.

    The Winds Of Change

    Among state regulators, there’s no question who’s to blame for fouling the groundwater in Dexter. The water table is shallow in this part of the state, and monitoring wells downgradient of the dairies all clearly show excess nitrates. The dairies are under state abatement plans to control manure runoff.

    New Mexico’s dairy industry denies the New Mexico Environment Department’s figure that two-thirds of its farms are polluting groundwater. Robert Hagevoort, a dairy extension specialist and industry spokesman, suggests that critics are too quick to blame dairies.

    “They may have a septic tank that’s leaking. That is the No. 1 reason why domestic wells in New Mexico are contaminated,” Hagevoort says. “With that, I’m not saying there’s not issues and we’re not working on some of these dairies. Dairymen are very adamant about being a good steward to the environment. They want to make sure that their families that live on these dairies can drink that water, can bathe in that water and their animals are healthy as well.”

    And no one wants to drive the milk cows out of New Mexico. Dairies contribute an estimated $1.2 billion to the economy in a poor state with little private industry. Even Rodriguez, whose well water is contaminated, works at a dairy. But after decades of acceptance, there’s a sense here in the state that the dairies’ free ride is over.

    “Public sentiment is clearly shifting towards wanting to see more protection from the groundwater pollution that follows CAFO dairy operations,” says Dan Lorimier of the Sierra Club.

    New Mexico is currently in the process of rewriting and tightening regulations for dairy discharge permits. This year — for the first time ever — the state rejected a proposed dairy in the town of Caballo after citizens protested that it would pollute the Rio Grande watershed.

    ‘The Right Thing To Do’

    Pro-dairy billboards have sprouted around the state. One shows a family watching cows graze on green pastures with the message: “Caring for our land isn’t easy. But it’s the right thing to do.”

    Jana Hughes, a homemaker who lives next to a dairy near Hobbs, N.M., and recently formed a group called Citizens for Dairy Reform, was shown a photo of that billboard.

    “False advertisement,” Hughes says. “I mean, as someone who lives around dairies and knows dairies, that is not how it is. We’re talking 2,000 cows confined in a small area, living in their own feces and urine.

    “Some dairymen try to site their farms as far from civilization as possible. John Woelber built his $5 million, 2,300-cow operation in remote high desert in Valencia County, 10 miles from his nearest neighbor.

    “The reason we’re out here in the middle of nowhere is so we have no complaints; we have no neighbors that will come up and say, ‘You’ve got too many flies,’ or, ‘It smells,’ ” Woelber says.

  • NSF Develops Standard for Low Lead Plumbing Products in Support of New Requirements in California

    ANN ARBOR, Mich. – NSF International today announced the development of a new
    compositional standard for products that come in contact with drinking water, including
    faucets. The new requirements are incorporated into the NSF/ANSI American National
    Standard for Drinking Water Products to help protect the public from exposure to lead.
    Annex G – Weighted Average Lead Content Evaluation Procedure to a 0.25 Percent
    Lead Requirement allows manufacturers to demonstrate compliance to recently enacted
    legislation in California that limits the weighted average of lead content in plumbing
    products, which come in contact with drinking water, to 0.25 percent.
    The annex was recently incorporated into NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking Water
    System Components — Health Effects, a standard that includes procedures to evaluate
    products that come in contact with drinking water and to screen out those products that
    could contribute excessive levels of contaminants into drinking water. Products covered
    in the standard include: pipes and related products; protective and barrier materials
    (including cements/coatings); joining and sealing materials (including gaskets, adhesives,
    lubricants); process media (including carbon, sand, zeolite, ion exchange media);
    mechanical devices (including water meters, in-line valves, filters, process equipment);
    mechanical plumbing devices (faucets, drinking fountains, and components); and potable
    water materials (non-metallic materials).

    ANN ARBOR, Mich. – NSF International today announced the development of a new compositional standard for products that come in contact with drinking water, including faucets. The new requirements are incorporated into the NSF/ANSI American National Standard for Drinking Water Products to help protect the public from exposure to lead.

    Annex G – Weighted Average Lead Content Evaluation Procedure to a 0.25 Percent Lead Requirement allows manufacturers to demonstrate compliance to recently enacted legislation in California that limits the weighted average of lead content in plumbing products, which come in contact with drinking water, to 0.25 percent.

    The annex was recently incorporated into NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking Water System Components — Health Effects, a standard that includes procedures to evaluate products that come in contact with drinking water and to screen out those products that could contribute excessive levels of contaminants into drinking water. Products covered in the standard include: pipes and related products; protective and barrier materials (including cements/coatings); joining and sealing materials (including gaskets, adhesives, lubricants); process media (including carbon, sand, zeolite, ion exchange media); mechanical devices (including water meters, in-line valves, filters, process equipment); mechanical plumbing devices (faucets, drinking fountains, and components); and potable water materials (non-metallic materials).

    The inclusion of Annex G (www.nsf.org/media/enews/AnnexG.pdf) is important for manufacturers selling products in California who must comply with the new lead content requirements in addition to the current chemical extraction requirements of NSF/ANSI Standard 61. California recently passed legislation that requires manufacturers to meet the 0.25 percent weighted average lead content. Other states are also considering low- lead content legislation.

    “Annex G establishes a protocol to determine product compliance with the 0.25 percent maximum weighted average lead content requirement of the California Health & Safety Code. It is our expectation that states with low lead requirements will recognize AnnexG in their regulations, and this will provide a uniform method for product evaluation,” said Pete Greiner, Technical Manager, NSF Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Program.

    The annex was developed by NSF’s Lead Task Group with guidance from key regulators, proponents of the California lead bill, industry representatives and the NSF Standard 61 Joint Committee. The NSF Joint Committee is comprised of equal representation from public health, user communities and industry to ensure an open, transparent and consensus process.

    While California lead content requirements are not scheduled to go into effect until 2010, NSF is providing product evaluations against the annex now, and updating NSF 61 listings to indicate compliance with the low lead requirement.

    “Annex G is a consensus standard that took into consideration comments from key stakeholders in California and nationwide. It gives companies a valuable tool for assessing compliance with California’s lead content standard. California is leading the way on getting toxic chemicals out of products. Companies that meet the standard will be at a competitive advantage. In conjunction with applicable verification testing, this standard provides valuable information for our laboratory to use in our work,” said Bruce La Belle, Chief, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Environmental Chemistry Laboratory.

    For more information on Annex G and NSF/ANSI Standard 61, visit http://www.nsf.org/ info/wdsfaq/index.asp. For more information on NSF/ANSI Standard 61 requirements or NSF testing and certification services to the standard, contact Pete Greiner at 734.769.5517 or greinerp@nsf.org

  • New EPA Web Portal Features Green Resources for Retailers

    GreenBiz.com, 8 May 2009 – In collaboration with the Retail Industry Leaders
    Association, the Environmental Protection Agency has launched a web portal for
    retailers that offers information and resources about environmental compliance, pollution
    prevention and other green issues specific to the industry.

    GreenBiz.com, 8 May 2009 – In collaboration with the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Environmental Protection Agency has launched a web portal for retailers that offers information and resources about environmental compliance, pollution prevention and other green issues specific to the industry.

    More than a year in the making, the Retail Industry Web Portal at www.epa.gov/ retail industry includes resources that address compliance and sustainability issues in several categories:

    • New Buildings and Infrastructure
    • Facilities Management
    • Transportation Logistics and Supply Chain
    • Merchandising: Products and Packaging
    • Customer Programs and Services
    • Reporting

    The front page of the portal features a section that flags enforcement alerts. It also provides a menu of links that direct the user to EPA programs, such as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), GreenChill, WaterSense and 15 others.

    The portal is an outgrowth of RILA ‘s Sustainability Initiative, which the association began in 2007 to develop and promote cleaner and greener business practices. Resources and information available through the portal are free.

    The Association for Retail Environments also announced that it has a new tool available.

    The 100-page guide called “Sustainable Retail Environments: Product Guidelines and Operational Best Practices” includes information about product design, manufacturing, logistics, strategies for integrating sustainability into business operations, understanding eco-labels and LEED standards for retail.

    The guide is available in a flash drive and in hard copy for prices that range from $149, the members’ rate for the flash drive, to $399, the fee for nonmembers interested in buying a hard copy.

    This article is reproduced with kind permission of GreenBiz.com. For daily news and articles visit www.greenbiz.com.Visit GreenBuzz to subscribe to GreenBiz.com’s free newsletter.

  • Assessing Outdoor Air Near Schools

    Schools Recommended For Initial Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring Listed Alphabetically by State

    Hudson K-Eight Elementary School – Birmingham, AL
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Lewis Elementary School – Birmingham, AL
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Riggins School – Birmingham, AL
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Tarrant Elementary School – Tarrant City, AL
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Felton Elementary School – Lennox, CA
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in TSP, PAH, VOC

    Santa Anita Christian Academy –  El Monte, CA
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Soto Street Elementary School – Los Angeles, CA
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Stevens Creek Elementary School – Cupertino, CA
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Cr+6

    Roland-Story High School – Story City, IA
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Diisocyanates

    Saint Josaphat School – Chicago, IL
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Cr+6 , Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP

    Pittsboro Elementary School – Pittsboro, IN
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10

    Lincoln Elementary – Warsaw, IN
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, VOCs

    Abraham Lincoln Elementary School – East Chicago, IN
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs

    Jefferson Elementary School – Gary, IN
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs

    Colvin Elementary – Wichita, KS
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Cr+6, VOCs

    Charles Russell Elementary School – Ashland, KY
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs

    Crabbe School – Ashland, KY
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs

    Hatcher School – Ashland, KY
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs

    Eden Gardens Fundamental Elementary School – Shreveport, LA
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Carbonyls, Cr+6

    Lincoln Park Elementary School – Muskegon, MI
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Cr+6, Metals in PM10

    Spain Elementary School – Detroit, MI
    Pollutants to be Monitored – VOCs

    Minnesota International Middle Charter School – Minneapolis, MN
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Cr+6, Diisocyanates, Metals in PM10

    Enterprise High School – Enterprise, MS
    Pollutants to be Monitored – VOCs

    Paulsboro High School – Paulsboro, NJ
    Pollutants to be Monitored – VOCs, Carbonyls, Metals in PM10

    Mabel Holmes Middle School – Elizabeth, NJ
    Pollutants to be Monitored – VOCs, Carbonyls, Metals in PM10

    Olean Middle School – Olean, NY
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Diisocyanates, VOC

    Intermediate School 143 – New York, NY
    Pollutants to be Monitored – VOCs

    La Croft Elementary School – East Liverpool, OH
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10

    Elm Street Elementary School – Wauseon, OH
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Diisocyanates, VOCs,

    Whitwell Elementary School – Ironton, OH
    Pollutants to be Monitored – Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs

    Life Skills of Trumbull County**

    Academy of Arts and Humanities***Warren OH Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP, PAH, VOCs
    The Ohio Valley Educational Service Center Marietta OH Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP
    Warren Elementary School Marietta OH Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP
    Toledo Elementary School Toledo OR Carbonyls, Metals in PM10, VOCs
    Harriet Tubman Middle School Portland OR Carbonyls, Metals in PM10, VOCs
    Clairton Educational Center Clairton PA Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs
    South Allegheny Middle/High School McKeesport PA Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs
    Sto-Rox Elementary School **
    Sto-Rox Middle School McKees Rocks PA Cr+6, Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs
    Riverside Elementary School Reading PA Cr+6
    Kreutz Creek Valley Elementary School Hallam PA Cr+6
    Chicora Elementary School Charleston Heights SC Carbonyls, Cr+6, Metals in PM10, VOCs
    Ashland City Elementary School Ashland City TN Metals in PM10
    West Greene High School Mosheim TN Diisocyanates
    Lakeview Elementary School New Johnsonville TN Metals in PM10
    Vonore Middle School**
    Vonore Elementary School Vonore TN Diisocyanates
    Temple Elementary School Diboll TX VOCs
    NW Harilee Elementary School Dallas TX Carbonyls, VOCs
    Lamkin Elementary Cypress TX Cr+6
    San Jacinto Elementary School**
    Deer Park Junior High School Deer Park TX PAH, VOCs
    Young Scholars Academy Houston TX VOCs
    I C Evans Elementary School Burkburnett TX 4,4-Methylenedianiline
    Solid Rock Academy/Early Learning Center Madison Heights VA Metals in PM10, Metals in TSP
    St. Helen’s Elementary School Longview WA Carbonyls, Metals in PM10, VOCs
    Concord Elementary School Seattle WA Metals in TSP, VOCs
    Follansbee Middle School**
    Jefferson Primary School Follansbee WV Metals in PM10, PAH, VOCs
    Cabell County Career Technology Center Huntington WV Metals in PM10
    Neale Elementary School Vienna WV Metals in PM10
    * Pollutants to be measured have been selected based on emission sources in the vicinity of each school.
    • 4,4-Methylenedianiline: A chemical compound used mainly for making polyurethane foams
    • Carbonyls: Also known aldehydes (e.g., formaldehyde and acetaldehyde).
    • Cr+6: Hexavalent chromium
    • Diisocyanates: Chemical compounds used in manufacturing foam-containing products; three of these compounds will be measured.
    • Metals in PM10: Toxic metals contained in particulate matter that is 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller (e.g., lead, nickel and manganese).
    • Metals in TSP: Toxic metals contained in total suspended particulate matter (e.g., lead, nickel and manganese).
    • PAH: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (e.g., naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene).
    • VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds (e.g., benzene, vinyl chloride).

    Note: The groups of chemicals identified for each school as “pollutants to be monitored” include both the specific individual pollutants within the group that our current information indicates may be present at each school at levels of potential concern (i.e., the “driver pollutants”) and some other pollutants that can be inexpensively measured at the same time. While we will be analyzing air samples for both sets of pollutants in each chemical group and will review all the data in drawing conclusions for each school, we intend to focus our data analysis activities primarily on the individual “driver pollutants”.
    ** These schools are located close to each other. Our goal is to use one monitor to characterize both schools.

    *** School formerly known as Notre Dame Queen of Peace

  • Arsenic detected in soil near Livonia playscape

    BY CHRISTINA HALL
    FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

    Livonia has temporarily closed the Beverly Park play structure because arsenic was detected in the soil near the playscape and in test borings of the wood of the structure.

    Fencing was erected around the playscape today. Test results from about 8-10 feet outside the playscape area do not show elevated levels of arsenic, so the rest of the park is open, according to news release.

    Arsenic was used as a preservative in the pressure-treated wood at the playscape, which was built in 1993 as a community project. A year later, it was donated to the city, which took over maintenance in 2001. The structure has been sealed by city workers every two years since 2002, according to the release.

    The city recently hired an environmental testing consulting firm to test the playscape and area nearby based on a recommendation from a citizens committee looking at the future use of the playscape. The firm, Testing Engineers & Consultants Inc. in Troy, indicated the levels of arsenic exceed standards for safe direct contact.

    The city plans to hire an environmental consultant to help determine a plan to remediate the site.

    From Environmental Risk Managers: CCA (Chromate Copper Arsenate) treated lumber was voluntarily removed from the market a few years ago but may still be used in some commercial applications.  I have heard guesstimates that it will take 20 years for us to cycle through the CCA treated lumber currently in use.

    From playgrounds to decks, docks, play houses…. the contaminates are leaching out of the wood and causing environmental problems.  Make sure to handle and dispose of CCA treated lumber properly.  You want to make sure it does not get into compost material because that only exacerbates the extent of the problem.

    For contractors make sure they dispose of the wood in an approved lined landfill or if incineration is possible with a facility that can remove the contaminants and capture them so they are not released into the environment.

    Being proactive is the best way to address the growing problem of cycling through CCA treated lumber.

  • Arsenic contamination has some crying foul

    By BRIAN MCGILLIVARY
    February 01, 2009 12:00 am

    Arsenic contamination was discovered at a proposed park in Peninsula Township weeks before voters approved a $2 million, 10-year tax to pay for the property.
    But voters weren’t told of the contamination, and some township residents want to know why the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy — the nonprofit agency that’s facilitating the parkland purchase — withheld that information prior to the Nov. 4 election.

    Engineering firm Otwell-Mawby PC. investigated the site in August, and indicated an existing orchard and two previous orchard sites on the 62-acre parcel just south of McKinley Road might contain contamination from pesticides.

    The firm tested the soil and discovered levels of arsenic above state residential guidelines at all three locations, including more than 10 times over the limit at one site.
    Michigan Department of Environmental Quality officials recently said they will limit park access and possibly require some site cleanup before they approve the property for passive recreational use.

    One township board member questioned whether the project should continue. “The property was supposed to come to the township with no strings attached, but pollution is a pretty big attachment,” said township Treasurer David Weatherholt. “I wonder what would happen if it came up for a vote today?”

    Arnold Roth said test results should have been released before the Nov. 4 election, when voters approved a 0.4-mill property tax increase to purchase the property. “I would go as far as to say they misled the voters because every article that was written talked about how pristine the property was,” Roth said. “If they are going to have a public park where children play, then I think this is not a good thing.”

    Dave Murphy, who co-chaired the park millage campaign committee, said he had “absolutely no idea” contamination had been discovered before voters agreed to the purchase.
    “We knew nothing about any of the test results prior to the election,” Murphy said. “If anyone had flagged the area as potentially unhealthy, I would have wanted to back off immediately.”

    The arsenic likely comes from lead arsenate, a commonly used pesticide on old farms. Tests also revealed slightly elevated levels of lead, but well below limits for direct contact set by DEQ. Peninsula Township Supervisor Rob Manigold said he learned of the contamination on election day and wasn’t surprised by the news.
    “People have to be aware it’s anywhere in northern Michigan on old farm country,” Manigold said. “Heck, our school is built on an old farm, our parks are on old farms and subdivisions are on old farms. It’s always been there, just no one ever tested for it before.”

    Brad Gerlach is a land protection specialist at the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy. He acknowledged he knew about the contamination in mid-October and didn’t share it with Murphy or township officials. “There was nothing in (test results) that suggested there would be a problem with there being a park there,” Gerlach said.
    He compared it to Hickory Meadows park, a site obtained by Traverse City that also had farm chemical contamination.

    The proposed Peninsula park area on Center Road includes an active orchard and center meadow that showed arsenic levels at or slightly above 7.7 parts per million, the level allowed for direct contact with the soil in a residential setting. The limit assumes soil will be tracked into a home and inhaled as dust particulate by residents on a regular, long-term basis.

    John Vanderhoof, environmental quality analyst with the DEQ, said the agency likely would allow levels below 23 ppm for passive recreational use, as proposed by Otwell-Mawby. But the DEQ will require some type of barrier to prevent adjoining land owners from using the park as an extension of their yards.
    The meadow on the property’s northeast corner exceeds 23 ppm and will require some type of remediation, such as soil removal, covering or other means to prevent contact, he said.

    Gerlach said the Conservancy is working through a variety of remediation options. He did not know potential cleanup costs or who would pay for it.
    The Conservancy thus far has paid all expenses, and owns the option to purchase the property.

    Manigold said the township is under no obligation to complete the purchase and will wait for the final DEQ report before making a decision