Tag: Risk management

  • Communities are the victims for the social cost of Agriculture

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Not through any nefarious act but simply to put food on our tables, the agricultural industry has created a profusion of environmental liabilities.

    If you have and / or had agricultural operations in your community, chances a very good you have third party new and legacy environmental exposures impacting you.

    Liabilities created by third parties is a huge environmental exposure.  What is your strategy to address the third party environmental liabilities impacting you?  Pollution insurance is one consideration as part of your financial assurance strategy versus self-insurance.  Pollution insurance can protect you from the costs of legal fees, investigation, clean up, business interruption, disposal… created by third party liabilities.

    Here is another third party environmental liability example.  In the United States we have in excess of 300,000 known leaking underground storage tanks that we have no money to pay for cleanup, third party bodily injury….  My question is, how many leaking underground storage tanks don’t we know about that are impacting third parties?

    California farm communities pay price for decades of fertilizer use

    On a February day, a Waterford rancher made the rounds with a fertilizer and a fungicide.
    On a February day, a Waterford rancher made the rounds with a fertilizer and a fungicide. Ted Benson Modesto Bee file

     

  • Wild Fires Causing Pollution Losses

    environmental Strategist®, between the lines:  In follow up to our recent article on “Natural Disaster Seasons Are a Great Time To Talk Pollution Insurance”, please see the article below that reviews pollution liabilities created by wildfires.  These same contaminants are released during a residential or commercial building fire.

    Fire policies typically exclude coverage for the cleanup of resulting contamination caused by a fire.  Since the majority of real estate owners cannot afford to self-insure their exposure to pollution liabilities as a result of a fire, what is their risk transfer strategy?  Pollution insurance fills in the gap created by fire policies excluding pollution resulting from a fire. Any insureds who own property need to have a strategy in place for handling the aftermath of a fire.

    Research from California fires that have burned through homes and communities suggests such blazes leave a threatening legacy of caustic ash and toxic heavy metals. (Scott Olsen/Getty Images)
    Research from California fires that have burned through homes and communities suggests such blazes leave a threatening legacy of caustic ash and toxic heavy metals. (Scott Olsen/Getty Images)

    Fort McMurray wildfire will leave toxic legacy, experts say

    Mixed with water, ash almost as caustic as oven cleaner, U.S. Geological Survey says

    By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press Posted: May 09, 2016 1:22 PM MT Last Updated: May 09, 2016 2:12 PM MT

    Danger from the Fort McMurray wildfire that has destroyed entire city blocks in the northern Alberta city won’t end when the flames stop.

    Research from California fires that have burned through homes and communities suggests such blazes leave a threatening legacy of caustic ash and toxic heavy metals.

    “There’s no doubt, it is hazardous,” said Scott Stephens, a fire scientist at the University of California Berkeley.

    California has sad experience with wildfires raging through urban areas. Every summer, said Stephens, the state loses homes to marauding flames from the woods.

    Wildfires big and bad enough to force their way into communities are generally hot enough to burn off hydrocarbons such as vinyl siding, nylon carpets or household chemicals.

    “Fires really do incinerate most of that material,” Stephens said. “No doubt that has an impact on air quality, but the vinyls, the tires, the materials that you’d never think would burn … most of that stuff is gone.”

    House fires can burn for more than an hour at temperatures reaching 1,500 C, he said.

    “You’ll look and try and find your dishwasher or your refrigerator. You might find its motor, you might find a few things, but a lot of it has just disappeared.”

    But the ash left behind poses real threats.

    The U.S. Geological Survey found ash left after California’s home-destroying wildfires in 2007 and 2008 was far more alkaline than ash from wood fires. Mixed with water, the ash was almost as caustic as oven cleaner.

    Ash contaminated with heavy metals

    It was also significantly contaminated with metals, some of them toxic. Arsenic, lead, antimony, copper, zinc and chromium were all found at levels exceeding Environmental Protection Agency guidelines.

    Ash particles from urban-wildfire blazes tended to be smaller and more easily inhaled. Both arsenic and hexavalent chromium — a form of the metal known to cause lung cancer — were more readily taken up by lung fluids than they were in water.

    Many counties treat ash from such fires as hazardous waste, said Geoff Plumlee, a geochemist who conducted much of the U.S. research.

    “When large numbers of buildings burn, that does create a situation where there’s potential for much higher levels of metals to get out into the environment.”

    California experts say anyone returning to a home burned in a wildfire should dress protectively — long sleeves and pants, gloves, boots, masks and goggles. People are urged to stir up the ash as little as possible.

    Alberta’s last experience with a forest fire destroying homes came in Slave Lake, where more than 400 homes and other buildings were levelled in 2011 — about one-quarter as many as were burned in Fort McMurray. The ash from that fire was disposed of as hazardous waste.

    Tests of the ash found lead, a powerful neurotoxin especially dangerous to children, was at three times the recommended levels for residential soils. Dioxins and furans, some of which are highly potent carcinogens, were anywhere from 13 to 52 times the guideline levels.

    Government officials argued the ash shouldn’t be held to the same standards as soil and said the ash was not a health risk. But scientists at the time questioned that assessment.

    Plumlee emphasized that risks are manageable and fade over time. Ash quickly becomes less caustic when it mixes with small amounts of carbonic acid in rainfall.

    But the risks are real.

    “It’s not alarmist at all. We don’t really know if there are long-term effects,” he said. “(But) there are common-sense things people can do to minimize their exposure.”

  • Environmental Liabilities After A Fire

    fire

    12/29/15 – By Chris Bunbury

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Follow-up to an article we sent out titled “Must Read For Insurance Professionals That Sell Commercial Fire Insurance Policies”.

    In the article we highlighted how after a fire, the contaminated goo left by the fire department can create environmental liabilities for the insured to dispose of the contamination not to mention potential long term environmental liabilities on the insureds property and third party claims for bodily injury, property damage, business interruption, disposal costs, legal fees, investigation costs….

    The article also pointed out how the fire department is immune from environmental liability and under Federal law the property owner is ultimately responsible for the environmental condition of their land regardless of who caused the contamination.  So, bottom line is fires can create a huge E&O exposure for insurance professionals that sell fire insurance that do not strategize with insureds on potential environmental liabilities and how pollution insurance can fill in gaps in standard P&C coverage’s.

    Environmental Risk Managers, Inc. (ERMI) recently received a submission from one of our Partner agencies for an insured that owns and operates a warehouse.  The insured recently experienced a partial fire loss of just $180,000.  The insured has an opportunity to land a large client but the potential client requires the warehouse to have pollution insurance should they experience an environmental liability with their operation while warehousing the clients products.

    In marketing the submission to environmental insurance carriers ERMI received the following email from an underwriter:  “I am going to pass on this one due to the fire loss this past July.  In order to reconsider I would need results of environmental assessment performed after the fire and a description of any remediation.  And a detailed description of fire prevention and response loss control measures implemented since the loss.”

    I share this because it supports the fact environmental underwriters understand and have experienced the environmental liabilities caused by fires.  Also, fires create unscheduled expenses for the insured due to potential environmental liabilities.

    This is just another example of why pollution liability insurance has become part of “Best Practices” for insurance professionals.  As your environmental team member ERMI can assist you to make pollution liability insurance and risk management part of your daily business model to drive sales while reducing your E&O exposure.

  • Above Ground Storage Tank Risk Management Strategies

    AST

    12/9/15 – by Chris Bunbury, eS  – Environmental Risk Managers President:

    From contractors to agriculture, manuifacturers, auto dealer and repair facilities, trucking companies, gas stations… Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST’s) are abundant if our business world.

    Initial reactions generally are AST’s make sense versus Underground Storage Tanks (UST’s).  In talking with insurance professionals I will hear the insured does not really have an environmental exposure because their raw materials are stored in AST’s with secondary containment.  The AST pictured above is in secondary containment.  However as you and I am sure the contractor at this job site can see the integrity of the secondary containment has been compromised.  It is important to annually test the integrity of an AST’s secondary containment.

    More than likely if there is a release from this AST it will breach the secondary containment and allow pollutants to spread.  As a side note this tank is located in an area where local residents get their potable water from wells on their property, no city water supplied.

    I also point out this picture was taken after hours and there was no lock on the tank that would restrict vandals from stealing fuel or just pumping it on the ground for fun.  Regardless, the owner of the tank is responsible if there is a release, even if caused by vandals.

    At least this tank was placed in some type of secondary containment.  I would say more times than not AST’s are just placed on the ground with no secondary containment.  Farmers, like contractors will move AST’s around on their property to conserve fuel.  We see claims for this after it rains and the ground the AST was placed on gets saturated and unstable allowing the tanks to tip and spill its contents.

    Is an AST’s located where natural disasters (tornados, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes…) occur?  Natural disasters can destroy the integrity of the tank releasing its contents?

    While AST’s seem to be a better option than UST’s, when a spill does occur, the contents can spread faster and further than with a UST release.

    Most states do not require financial assurance on AST’s like they do for regulated UST’s.  One benefit to financial assurance is when a loss does occur there are some monies available to address the environmental liability.  AST’s can easily be insured on a standalone basis or using a contractors pollution liability policy or a site pollution insurance policy.

    If you are a AST owner you need to have not only a risk management strategy to reduce your exposure to loss but a financial assurance strategy for when a release occurs.

    As you environmental team member Environmental Risk Managers can assist you in proactively addressing your client’s environmental exposure to storage tanks.

  • Matson settles Hawaii’s claims over molasses spill for $15M

    What is a pollutant?  environmental Strategist describes a pollutant as any material, substance or product which is introduced into an environment for other than its intended use or purpose. There are numerous examples of fresh water, milk, cheese, fruit juice, beer, etc… all being classified as pollutants, and insurance coverage for pollution incidents  being denied by the General Liability carriers due to total pollution exclusions.  As the article below points you can add Molasses to the list of pollutants.

    In today’s transparent business environment, successful businesses balance managing and transferring their environmental exposures to drive their growth and profits. Environmental Risk Managers (ERMI) has a cornucopia of educational resources to coach you and your client’s on managing and transferring their environmental exposures.

    Matson1
    This Sept. 12, 2013 file photo shows various kinds of dead marine life on the dock fronting the La Mariana Sailing Club in Keehi Lagoon in Honolulu. A major shipping company will pay the state more than $15 million for a 2013 molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii’s attorney general said Wednesday, July 29, 2015. (AP Photo/Eugene Tanner, File)
    Jul. 29, 2015 10:15 PM EDT

    HONOLULU (AP) — A major shipping company has agreed to pay more than $15 million to compensate for a 2013 molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii’s attorney general said Wednesday.

    Attorney General Doug Chin called the settlement with Hawaii-based Matson Navigation Co. one of the largest for an environmental violation in Hawaii’s history. The settlement includes a combination of cash, restoration efforts and funding for environmental programs, he said.

    Matson is also agreeing to cease its molasses operation in Hawaii and pay for removal of its molasses tanks and any remaining molasses, Chin said.

    The company will pay $5.9 million to the state, and the costs related to ending the molasses operation are estimated between $5.5 million and $9.5 million, which would put the total settlement amount between $11.4 million and $15.4 million, Matson Inc. said in a statement.

    “The range Matson provides in its press statement appears to reflect a desire to report a smaller loss to its investors for its next earnings report,” Chin said in response. “I have received assurances and the evidence strongly indicates that it will in fact cost $9.5 million for Matson to terminate its molasses operations in Hawaii. The state will make sure that Matson spares no costs and cuts no corners.”

    The 1,400 tons of molasses that spilled into the harbor in 2013 killed more than 26,000 fish and other marine life. Enough molasses to fill about seven rail cars oozed out from a section of pipe Matson thought had been sealed, suffocating marine life and discoloring the water as the sticky substance sunk to the bottom of the harbor.

    The spill, in an industrial area about 5 miles west of Waikiki’s hotels and beaches, shut down much of Honolulu Harbor for nearly two weeks.

    Reaching a settlement allowed the state to avoid a lawsuit that would have taken eight to 10 years to resolve in court, Chin said.

    The $5.9 million paid to Hawaii includes money to re-grow a coral nursery to help replace coral that had been damaged or destroyed. It will also reimburse the state for cleanup efforts and other costs, including nearly $2 million in legal fees. There will also be a contribution to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s World Conservation Congress, which is being hosted by Hawaii next year.

    Matson executives said previously that they were not prepared for the possibility of a spill, despite transporting molasses from the pipeline for about 30 years.

    Matson2
    In this Monday, Sept. 16, 2013 photo, a Maston ship sits in Honolulu Harbor near the site of a molasses spill. A major shipping company will pay the state more than $15 million for a 2013 molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii’s attorney general said Wednesday, July 29, 2015. (AP Photo/Oskar Garcia)

    Earlier this year, Matson Terminals Inc. pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges for illegally releasing the molasses into the harbor without a permit on Sept. 9 and 10, 2013. As part of a plea deal, Matson agreed to pay fines and restitution totaling $1 million, including $600,000 that went to the Waikiki Aquarium and Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii.

    Matson is the biggest company that ships goods to Hawaii from the mainland.

    “Matson has been a member of the community for more than a hundred years, and the company’s leadership understands the damage the molasses leak caused,” Gov. David Ige said in a statement. “The resolution allows reparations to occur now and helps see to it that such an environmental disaster does not happen again in Hawaii.”

    Now that there’s a settlement with Hawaii, the company doesn’t face any other pending claims, said Matson spokesman Jeff Hull.

    “Environmental stewardship is a core value in our company, so this event was a blow to all of us at Matson,” President and CEO Matt Cox said in a statement. “We can’t take back what happened, but we’ve done our best to make it right.”

    Matson shares climbed 51 cents, or 1.3 percent, to close Wednesday at $40.07, and they were up 1 cent in after-hours trading.

  • eRMI on Illegal Disposal of Waste

    Environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Illegal disposal of waste in the United States is a tens of billions of dollars a year industry.  Illegally disposed of waste migrates onto third party properties placing people and our environment in harm’s way.

    The hard part is identifying a business that illegally disposes of waste.  In fact, chances are very good that you do business with and support businesses that illegally dispose of waste.  WHAT!!!!!

    The following is just a fraction of the companies that have paid fines and penalties to the government for illegally disposing of waste such as pesticides, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, pharmaceuticals, bleach, fertilizer, electronic waste and other toxic materials.

    Wal-mart (paid $82,000,000, paid another $100,000,000, paid,…)

    AT&T (paid $28,000,000, paid another $52,000,000, paid…)

    Lowes (paid $18,000,000)

    Costco (paid $3,600,000)

    Safeway (paid $10,000,000)

    99 Cents Only Stores (paid $2,000,000)

    Bottom line, it’s more profitable and easier for companies to illegally dispose of waste than following regulations so the practice of illegally disposing of waste will continue to flourish.  Businesses need to have a financial assurance strategy to protect themselves against the environmental exposures created by illegally disposed of waste.  Environmental liability insurance can protect you against this environmental exposure.

    A few links to stories on companies identified as illegal disposers of waste.  We could fill volumes with these exact same types of stories.

    1. http://www.rcrwireless.com/20141121/carriers/att-fined-23-8m-for-illegal-disposal-of-hazardous-waste-tag2
    2. http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article19430040.html#storylink=cpy
    3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/wal-mart-is-fined-82-million-over-mishandling-of-hazardous-wastes.html?_r=0
    4. http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2014/09/17/t-j-maxx-parent-hit-with-27-million-fine-for-dumping-hazardous-wastes
    5. http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/mike_hower/safeway_99_cents_only_fined_improper_hazardous_waste_disposal
  • Green But Not Clean

    Recycling may be the right thing to do, but it carries its own set of risks.

    By: Susannah Levine  Risk & Insurance

    The recycling industry is poised to continue growing as humans put greater stress on the planet, and technology allows more efficient extraction of useful materials from spent products.

    Although recycling may be green, the process is not clean, and it carries many of the same risks as other heavy industries, plus some additional pollution exposures.

    Even as environmental laws and regulations grow more restrictive, many recyclers still underinsure their operations for pollution.

    Typically, the recycling industry’s claims look like the claims affecting any heavy industry’s. The risks to recyclers of a product are similar to the manufacturer of that product, experts said.

    “When a pollution claim hits, it hits big,” said Daniel Curran, director of underwriting for several of Willis’ environmental programs, including RecycleGuard.

    Many recycling companies underestimate their environmental liability exposure and take a pass on the insurance.

    Even so, the market for pollution insurance is a “sizable” $1 billion — a rough estimate, since hard numbers don’t exist, said Mary Ann Susavidge, environmental chief underwriting officer at XL Insurance.

    The law requires more regulated companies, such as landfills and hazardous waste recyclers, to buy environmental insurance, while others, including “R2 certified” electronic recyclers, are contractually obliged to buy it.

    There are also larger companies that see environmental insurance as true asset protection even if they are not required to purchase it.

    Then, there are some less regulated companies, including paper and scrap recyclers, that tend to have operations of $5 million or less. Those companies often regard pollution coverage as a discretionary expense, experts said.

    “Fifty percent of the accounts I look at gamble on their general liability covering an environmental spill, fire or contamination and they don’t protect their assets,” said Matt Gartner, assistant vice president of underwriting at XL Insurance.

    “They don’t expect an incident, but bad things happen to good people,” he said.

    Stacy Brown, president and managing partner of Freberg Environmental Insurance, recalled a small business with a large above-ground storage tank that dislodged during one of the increasingly frequent major floods on the East Coast.

    The tank floated downstream, struck a tree and spilled five thousand gallons of oil into a river. Fortunately, the company had pollution insurance, which covered the million-dollar-plus remediation that would otherwise have forced it into bankruptcy.

    Many insurance companies request an environmental audit to limit their losses to catastrophic “acts of God.”

    When Brown underwrites a facility, he looks for the company’s degree of compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws. Even before he walks in the door, he looks at publicly available records, compliance histories, permits, and Google Earth, which shows the physical plant, stacks of recovered materials and above-ground storage tanks.

    Regulations guide the underwriting process. If the company handles hazardous materials, are they stored in the proper tanks? Does it have a storm-water management plan? Where does it store used oil?

    “I look at cleanliness. Housekeeping tells a lot about how a company is run,” Brown said. He looks at records, since companies may accumulate certain waste materials for only a certain time, and whether they’re filed neatly or jumbled in a desk drawer.

    He interviews management to understand how tightly they run the facility and line workers to understand how they do their jobs. Are they draining fluids the right way?

    The consultation with compliance experts is collaborative, not confrontational, he said.

    Noncompliant companies eventually get shut down and expose themselves to expensive engineering remedies. They also suffer reputational loss, which can be as crippling as the cost of corrective action.

    “It’s cheaper to stay in compliance,” Brown said.

    Bad Company

    And it’s cheaper to do business with compliant recyclers. Under Superfund Section 107, said Bill McElroy, senior vice president at Liberty International Underwriters, the chain of liability extends from material producers, through transporters, waste brokers, recyclers, and the people who buy the recovered materials.

    For example, 255 defendants — mostly upstream industrial producers — were named in United States vs. Chemetco Inc. et al., in which a now-bankrupt recycler of copper-bearing scrap and manufacturing residue pleaded guilty in 2001 to violating the Clean Water Act by secretly installing a pipe that illegally dumped metal-filled wastewater into a creek for a decade.

    The plaintiffs were fined $3.8 million, and the property is now a Superfund site.

    Not only do upstream producers have liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the misdeeds of the rare recycling “bad actor,” said Kim Ferraro, a senior staff attorney with the Hoosier Environmental Council, an Indiana environmental advocacy group, but so do responsible buyers of a site contaminated by previous owners.

    Ferraro represented the plaintiffs in Adkins et al. vs. VIM Recycling, which couldn’t keep up with the volume of waste — engineered woods, plastics, steel, padding, drywall, etc. — from nearby recreational vehicle manufacturers in Elkhart, Ind.

    The waste accumulated in 100-foot-high piles, Ferraro said, and rotted noxiously when exposed to the elements, sickening neighbors with its smell and dust emissions, and contaminating the groundwater.

    When a spark ignited in a dirty grinder, the plant went up in flames, killing one worker and injuring another. VIM did not have the permits to do business legally, let alone pollution insurance, Ferraro said.

    The RV producers whose waste VIM putatively recycled may have had liability under RCRA, which establishes responsibility for solid waste that creates endangerment. Ferraro considered naming them in the case, but finally did not.

    The neighbors cheered when the court reached a default judgment against VIM, which failed to defend itself in court and went out of business.

    The assets of the operation were purchased by Soil Solutions, which makes animal bedding and landscape mulch from recycled wood chips.

    Although it obtained the proper permits and set up a responsible shop, said its attorney, Ed Sullivan, a partner with the international law firm of Faegre Baker Daniels, the company found itself hobbled by the hostility of the community, as well as lingering problems from VIM’s many failures to satisfy state standards.

    Soil Solutions was added as a defendant to an existing class-action lawsuit claiming the operations were a nuisance and health hazard. As part of an out-of-court settlement, it agreed to process and remove many of VIM’s contaminants.

    The settlement halts the litigation, and allows Soil Solutions to operate on the site for up to five years.

    Lessons learned? Beyond complying with regulations, Ferraro said, it’s important to have cordial relations with the community. Legitimately listen and address the concerns of neighbors.

    And second, she said, don’t buy a business that is being sued.

    Sullivan agreed on the importance of good community relations. “My client tried to do that,” he said, “but the plaintiffs decided early that Soil Solutions was just like VIM.”

    Any kind of environmental operation that creates odor, such as composting yard and waste processing, creates third-party liability and is fertile ground for plaintiffs’ attorneys — even if the operator does everything correctly and has all its permits, said Ken Cornell, executive vice president, chief environmental lines underwriter with Aspen Insurance

    Plaintiffs’ attorneys may comb through regulatory databases and inspections for violations, even administrative errors such as posting the right notice in the right place.

    “Good relations with your neighbors, and make darn sure your record is clean,” he advised. “Have a methodology for dealing with complaints up-front before the neighbors get attorneys.”

  • Trawling: destructive fishing method is turning sea floors to ‘deserts’

     environmental Strategist™, between the lines:  Agriculture uses 80% of the worlds fresh water supply and it accounts for 70% of the contamination in our waterways.  Should we stop agriculture?

    The fact that each ones of us eats food means we support agriculture, therefore, each an everyone of us is a polluter.  The challenge we face is how can we pollute in a way that has the least amount of impact on human health and the environment?

    We can’t begin to answer that question until we are environmentally educated.  For businesses and business professionals, www.estrategist.com is your first step as a polluter to have the least amount of impact upon human health and the environment.

    From: Morgan Erickson-Davis, MONGABAY.COM,  Published May 29, 2014 01:30 PM :  Bottom trawling is a practice used by commercial fisheries around the world in which a large, heavy net is dragged along the ocean floor to scoop up everything in its path. Previous research has linked trawling to significant environmental impacts, such as the harvest of large numbers of non-target species, collectively termed “by catch,” as well as destruction of shallow seabeds. Now, a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds this method is also resulting in long-term, far-reaching consequences in the deeper ocean and beyond.

    diagram courtesy of FRDC Australia

    Trawling dates back to the 1300s, and it became widespread in coastal areas around the world after the industrialization of commercial fishing in the late-1800s. Bottom trawling targets commercially valuable species that live near the sea floor, such as cod, rockfish, and various kinds of squid and shrimp. Gear varies depending on the fishing outfit, but nets can be nearly as large as a city block and scoop thousands of fish and other marine animals in a single drag.

    Bottom trawling has one of the highest bycatch rates of all commercial fishing practices. In the North Pacific, the practice accounts for 18 percent of annual groundfish harvests, and 82 percent of the region’s discarded by-catch. At times, bycatch accounts for upwards of 90 percent of a net’s total catch.

    In addition to directly killing many fish and other marine species, studies have shown that bottom trawling is very destructive to the seabed. It dislodges sediment, which destroys the habitat of ground-dwelling organisms, makes the water more opaque and unsuitable for many species, and releases pollutants and carbon that had been trapped below the seafloor.

    As populations of many fish species dwindle due to intensive commercial fishing effort, bottom trawling outfits are searching for new fishing grounds in ever-deeper regions of oceans around the world. However, this new study indicates that deeper ocean bottoms are also being affected by trawling, as the nets destroy delicate seafloor ecosystems at a level akin to desertification.

    “Cumulatively, the impacts of trawling on the sediment structure, the benthic biodiversity, and the most basic of all of the nutritional resources in these deep-sea sedimentary ecosystems resemble the catastrophic effects caused by man-accelerated soil erosion on land, and the general environmental deterioration of abandoned agriculture fields exposed to high levels of human impact,” write the researchers, from various institutions in Italy and Spain.

    Continue reading at ENN affiliate, MONGABAY.COM.

  • Report backs Chinese drywall health complaints

    environmental Strategist™, between the lines:  Who are you doing business with?  This is the first question a business answers as they develop and execute their environmental Management Strategy (eMS).  The article below is an excellent example of why it’s critical to find out who you are doing business with.

    An eMS is the first step a business takes on their sustainable path.  An eMS is designed to identify your environmental foot print to drive growth and profits in today’s business environment.

    The four footings of an eMS are:

    1. What’s coming in your front door? (Who are you doing business with?)
    2. What goes on inside your corporate walls
    3. What goes out your back door
    4. Who are your neighbors

    For more on developing and executing your eMS go to www.estrategist.com.

     

    Report backs Chinese drywall health complaints

    Elizabeth Weise, USATODAY1:04 a.m. EDT May 2, 2014

    Chinese-made drywall used in more than 20,000 homes in the United States could have caused nosebleeds, headaches, difficulty breathing and asthma attacks in tens of thousands of Americans exposed to it, the federal government said in a long-awaited report released Friday.

    The drywall was installed in mostly Southern homes since 2005, and it has been the subject of multiple lawsuits. In addition to health-related complaints, homeowners have also alleged sulfur dioxide and other chemicals found in the drywall caused foul odors and corroded pipes and wiring. There have been five settlements totaling more than $1 billion, but it’s not clear how much of the drywall was replaced.

    “The bottom line is that this modeling data suggests that levels of sulfur dioxide and other sulfur compounds found in the Chinese manufactured drywall were sufficiently high to result in the health effects people have been reporting,” said Vikas Kapil, chief medical officer with the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The health research began in 2011 but was not finished until now because of the work necessary to create scientifically valid models that allowed researchers to estimate what the sulfur emissions from the drywall samples “might mean for people in a room in a house” containing that drywall, Kapil said.

    As of Jan. 20, owners of 20,244 properties had registered for compensation in a multistate settlement program overseen by the New Orleans federal court where all the lawsuits were consolidated. Claims have been filed by homeowners, home builders, contractors and construction material distributors.

    The homes smelled like rotten eggs, many reported. Appliances and electronics failed as their wiring corroded and metal in the homes tarnished and pitted.

    The only way to deal with the problem is to rip out and replace the faulty wallboard.

    The drywall, sometimes called wallboard, was imported from China beginning in 2005, after the record-breaking hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 created a shortage of U.S.-made wallboard.

    Drywall is made of gypsum plaster pressed between two thick sheets of paper, and is used to make interior walls and ceilings.

    The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sent staff to China, where they obtained samples of wallboard manufactured there in 2005, 2006 and 2009.

    The samples were tested by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif. Results from those samples were then used to estimate how much of the chemicals would be present in the air of a home with the defective wallboard.

    High levels of sulfur dioxide were found in the samples of Chinese wallboard, as well as hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and ethyl mercaptan.

    Samples of U.S.-made wallboard had very low or undetectable amounts of those chemicals.

    The samples gave off the highest amounts of chemicals when they were exposed to hot, humid conditions — much like those found in Florida and Louisiana, two states with the largest number of cases linked to the wallboard.

    Tainted Chinese drywall is no longer sold in the United States since the 2012 passage of the Drywall Safety Act, which set chemical standards for domestic and imported drywall.

  • Lead tests close downtown Helena DEQ building

    environmental Strategist™ (eS), between the lines:   Caught the fox in the hen house!

    I had an accountant many years ago and the first time I went into pick up my paper work for filing my taxes we spent some time getting to know each other.  During the conversation he told he never balanced his own check book.  I thought to myself do I want to depend upon someone with my finances who did not even perform the most basic of accounting functions, balancing your own check book?  Needless to say I switched accounts.

    When it comes to managing the environmental exposures impacting businesses, we need to be on the same page that in today’s business environment, government environmental regulation is just a bump in the road.  Private business understands to compete in today’s business environment, managing the environmental exposures impacting your operations has become part of “Best Practices”.

    Besides do you want to put your company’s future in the hands of someone that can’t follow the most basic of environmental principals, or what government regulation calls environmental due diligence.  Environmental site assessments (Phase I, Phase II…) are performed so you can determine if you are buying an asset or a liability.  Try getting a commercial property loan from a bank without evidence of environmental due diligence.    Not everyone is as fortunate as the Montana DEQ with access to the tax payers pocket book to take care of their lack of following their own environmental regulations.

    For more on managing your environmental exposures to drive growth and profits go to www.estrategist.com.

    eS Risk Management Strategy:  As this article points out the cost to investigate and test for environmental liabilities can get to be very expensive.  Just a few of the benefits of environmental insurance versus self insuring is environmental insurance can pay for claims investigations such a lead testing, medical screenings, along with third party bodily injury, first and third party business income, remediation costs, legal fees….  When it comes to managing and transferring a business’s environmental exposures there is just one question a business needs to answer.  Question:  Based upon our business model, are we better off transferring our environmental exposures for fractions of a cent on the dollar or self insure and wait until an environmental loss occurs and pay 100 cents on the dollar out of our pocket for claims management, legal fees, investigation costs, third party bodily injury, third party property damage, first party clean up….

    October 28, 2013 3:30 pm  •  By MATT VOLZ Associated Press

    HELENA – The state Department of Environmental Quality closed its downtown Helena building on Monday after finding lead levels up to 40 times higher than federal standards in ceilings throughout the former National Guard armory.

    The results have prompted testing of the air and surfaces in the building’s work areas to find out whether employees have been exposed to lead, DEQ director Tracy Stone-Manning said. The results are due Wednesday.

    “Out of an abundance of caution, we chose to close the building,” Stone-Manning said.

    The employees are on paid leave through Wednesday. They and former employees who worked at the location are being asked to take free blood tests to determine whether they have been exposed, Department of Administration Director Sheila Hogan said.

    Exposure to high levels of the toxic metal can result in lead poisoning, which can eventually lead to brain and kidney damage and anemia, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Even low levels of exposure can damage an unborn child’s nervous system and affect behavior and intelligence, according to the CDC.

    DEQ officials are asking employees who were pregnant or nursing when they worked in the building to test their children.

    The state took over the building at the intersection of Last Chance Gulch and Euclid Avenue in 2002, and it now houses nearly 100 workers of the DEQ’s remediation division.

    The remediation division, which oversees investigations and cleanup of contaminated sites across the state, now finds itself looking for a temporary home while its own offices are tested for contamination.

    “The irony is not lost on us,” Stone-Manning said. “But the reason we are asking these detailed questions is because we are the DEQ and the remediation division.”

    It is unclear if or when the workers will return to the building. Even if the additional tests turn up acceptable airborne lead levels, the lead found in the initial tests above the ceiling tiles must be cleaned and abated, DEQ officials said in a memo to staff.

    The building was constructed in 1942 and housed a firing range for the Montana National Guard. The range was closed in 1994 and remediated for lead, Hogan said.

    But only the range was tested and cleaned, not the rest of the building.

    Medical screenings of field employees in August 2012 showed higher than average levels of zinc protoporphyrin, an indicator of possible elevated lead levels in the blood, in six to eight workers, DEQ spokeswoman Lisa Peterson said.

    Previous tests had been conducted from 1994 to 2009 in individual rooms after employees there reported health complaints, she said.

    “We have had employees inform us of symptoms, however, we have no evidence at this time that they were related to lead exposure,” Peterson said.

    Rather, DEQ officials identified lead testing as a “data gap” in their information, and this month’s initial tests were conducted as part of a plan to identify any and all environmental hazards in the building.

    The plenum, or the area above the ceiling tiles, was tested in 22 areas of the building on Oct. 16 and 18. On Friday, the results found lead dust levels higher than the federal standard for commercial properties of 40 micrograms per square foot in 14 of those 22 areas, according to a copy of the laboratory results.

    One area above the second-floor men’s bathroom tested for 1,600 micrograms per square foot, which is 40 times the federal standard.

    Stone-Manning said there are many questions still to answer, including why it took more than 10 years to find out about the potential lead hazards. She said officials will put together a scientific and historical analysis to answer those questions.