Dirty Property

The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released a new draft maximum allowable dose level for Chrome VI as an oral reproductive toxicant. This draft has been issued and OEHHA intends to adopt the new maximum allowable dose level for Chrome VI as an oral reproductive toxicant at 8.2 micrograms (µg) per day. As part of the OEHHA draft review process, written comments must be provided to OEHHA by 5pm on September 27th, 2010. I expect that there will be many parties that have comments and this will be a contested issue. The fact does remain; however, that a Public Health Goal (PHG) will be issued soon for Chrome VI. OEHHA has been attempting to adopt a PHG for Chrome VI for over ten years and the battle may be over soon.

More updates to follow.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that $1.4 million is being awarded for cleanup efforts at contaminated California sites known as brownfields. Both the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and City of Sacramento were chosen to receive the grant funds. A brownfield is a parcel of land where hazardous substances or pollutants are a barrier to its successful redevelopment or reuse.

The DTSC will receive $1 million of the grant and the City of Sacramento will receive $400,000 for redevelopment of blighted commercial property within the city.

It was an exiting day here in the office on July 13th. We received a gift from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a closure letter for one of our client’s sites located in Reseda. I would say that the Los Angeles RWQCB was very generous, but as my 5th grade teacher used to tell me, “You get the grade you deserve”.

We have been performing work at this former dry cleaner for the past couple of years and we did soil gas investigations, soil investigations, we installed groundwater wells, sampled groundwater, and operated a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. It is a relatively straight-forward site and a straight-forward approach to remediation of a dry cleaner, but the regulatory agency was a bit slow with the review of our submittals due to budget cuts and furlough days.

Some of our clients have received a request from the Federal EPA to perform sampling and laboratory analysis for additional compounds known as Lead Scavengers. Lead Scavengers are common additives in leaded gasoline and have been found to potentially pose a risk to groundwater. If a site was entered into one of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) programs and leaded motor fuels are or were stored (including aviation fuel and off-road fuel), that site is likely to now be required to sample for 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) and 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA). There are specific sampling and analytical methods required for these volatile organic compounds predominantly because the EPA is requiring relatively low reporting limits.

Please Contact Me if you are concerned that this may apply to you.

This is insane. Back in September 2009, I posted an email I had received from the EPA stating that the agency was going to sue the parent company of “The North Face”, the outdoor retailer. Now it appears that they have decided that they are going to sue The North Face and two other companies for more than half a million dollars total. This is a problem. There are major, MAJOR problems out there that are not being addressed because staff at this agency and agencies like them are wasting time with these types of frivolous pursuits. A certain oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico comes to mind, or perhaps the plume of DDT off the Palos Verdes Peninsula if you prefer to keep it within the purview of Jared Blumenfeld, the regional administrator of the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region who is quoted below.

Frankly, it shouldn’t matter if the claims made by the manufacturer of consumer products are substantiated or not; the adage that comes to mind is, “buyer beware” and the EPA needs to quit messing around and get back to work.

“The North Face” Parent Company, “Saniguard” Marketers, and Califone Fined More Than $500,000 Over Antimicrobial Claims
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced that three California companies and one New Jersey firm will pay more than $500,000 to resolve cases involving unsubstantiated antimicrobial claims for commonly used products such as shoes, headphones and bathroom fixtures.
“EPA will take decisive action against companies making unverified public health claims,” said Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator of EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “Unless these products are registered with EPA, consumers have little or no information about whether their claims are accurate.”
San Leandro, Calif.-based VF Outdoor, Inc., will pay $207,500 for allegedly making unsubstantiated public health claims such as providing “antimicrobial protection” and inhibiting the growth of “disease-causing bacteria” for more than 60 shoe products it sold – a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The products were sold under The North Face label by VF Outdoor. Products discovered online and evidence found at a North Face retail store in San Francisco led EPA to issue a complaint against VF Outdoor in 2009.
EPA also recently fined Califone International, Inc., of San Fernando, Calif., $220,000 over unproven health claims for headphones. Califone, a designer and distributor of audiovisual equipment used in schools and other institutions, allegedly sold headphones claiming “to prevent the spread of bacteria, mold and mildew for student protection.”
Additionally, EPA fined Component Hardware Group, Inc., of Lakewood, N.J., and John S. Dull Associates, Inc. (d/b/a Food Service Parts in Garden Grove, Calif.), $98,300 following an inspection conducted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The inspection revealed evidence that the companies were selling and distributing Saniguard products with unverified claims that they control growth of bacteria and contain antimicrobial technology that controls growth of E. coli, salmonella, staph, and pseudomonas on treated surfaces. The Saniguard products allegedly marketed to hospitals and other industries include faucets, spigots, handles, light switch and socket covers, door push and pull plates, and food service hardware.
EPA’s authority to assess penalties in these settlements stems from FIFRA, which requires that companies register pesticide products with EPA before making claims about their ability to control germs or pathogens. While the North Face, Califone, and Saniguard products all incorporated EPA-registered silver-based antimicrobial compounds to protect them against deterioration, they were never tested or registered to protect consumers against bacteria, fungus, mold, and/or mildew.
“We’re seeing more and more consumer products making a wide variety of antimicrobial claims,” said Katherine Taylor, associate director of the Communities and Ecosystems Division in EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “Whether they involve shoes, headphones, or household fixtures, EPA takes these unsubstantiated public health claims very seriously.”
Under FIFRA, products that claim to kill or repel bacteria or germs are considered pesticides, and must be registered with the EPA prior to distribution or sale. The Agency will not register a pesticide until it has been tested to show that it will not pose an unreasonable risk when used according to the label directions. Consumers should be careful to look for the EPA registration number printed on product labels, and need to follow the label directions for use.
Fact sheet on consumer products treated with pesticides: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/treatart.htm
Guidance for businesses on treated articles: http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2000-1.pdf
For more information on pesticides, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides

There was an interesting article posted in the Los Angeles times today titled, “Toxic Soil Lurks Beneath Carson’s Carousel Neighborhood”. The Los Angeles times always has a flair for the dramatic and this article’s title is no exception, but this is a very real concern. There are all the makings of a major environmental case that will likely take decades to resolve: High profile lawyers, big oil companies, and lower-middle class neighborhoods.

I have been hearing a bit about this case on and off for the past couple of years from colleagues and it is always interesting to see something hit the streets like this and see what the media picks up on.

View Larger Map

Toxic soil lurks beneath Carson neighborhood
The discovery of methane gas and benzene has transformed a 50-acre neighborhood into an environmental case study — a reminder of Southern California’s history as a center of the oil industry.

By Jeff Gottlieb, Los Angeles Times

April 27, 2010

Full Story

In many of the typical site investigations that I have mentioned before on this blog, we generally follow a phased approach to investigation, remediation, and ultimately closure. The first phase of investigation is known as a “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)”. While this title may not be too creative, it is an industry accepted term and is defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) in their standard 1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Phase I ESA is an in-depth research project where the Environmental Professional will perform “All Appropriate Inquiries” as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The goal of the Phase I is to define the potential for past activities performed at the subject site to adversely affect soil and/or groundwater.

If a potential or Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) is identified in the process of the Phase I ESA, a follow-up investigation or a Phase II ESA is generally recommended. I will go into the Phase II ESA process in a later post.

This post will continue a post series that I started toward the beginning of this blog and including:

Regulatory FAQ
Regulatory FAQ II
Definition of Terms
and
Industrial Facility

Those posts described the basic steps associated with the work I do at various types of sites. This post will describe my involvement in the standard dry cleaner site located in a standard shopping center.  Let’s say that there is a shopping center that has multiple units and one of them is a dry cleaner.  This tenant has been in operation as a dry cleaner since the center was built some 20-30 years ago.  The dry cleaning process, as I have discussed in my previous post about green dry cleaning, uses tetrachloroethelene (PCE).  From an environmental standpoint, this chemical can be a hassle to purchase, manage, dispose of, and generally use.  Due to the difficulties associated with disposal of PCE, many operators of dry cleaning facilities historically disposed of the chemical in the sewer by either dumping it in a floor drain, sink, or the toilet.  This practice was generally conducted up until the mid-1970s when environmental regulations became more mainstream.  Releases can also occur beneath the dry cleaning machine itself and in the area where the chemical is stored.

Investigating the potential for releases at these types of sites is generally performed in a few phases starting with a soil vapor survey in the area along the sewer line followed by soil samples in impacted areas identified during the soil vapor survey.  The final phase of investigation generally consists of groundwater samples in impacted areas identified during the soil sampling.

Remediation of a dry cleaner site generally involves soil vapor extraction (SVE) in the area of impacts.  The SVE methods can range from carbon adsorption to chemical oxidation (Generally, carbon is sufficient).  Since the impacted areas are commonly inside the building, excavation using small drill rigs and Bobcat-type excavators is necessary.  There are a number of challenges associated with the process, but it is rather common and these types of sites can be usually be remediated within a few years.

I have integrated this blog with feedburner so that I can get a bit more info about who is subscribing to it and what they are looking for.

I have also integrated this blog with my twitter @dcmca so that my posts will automatically push to the twitter.   Now,  If I can only get the twitter to facebook link setup up…

As a resident of the City of Long Beach, I have been following the recent developments of the land swap between the City of Long Beach and Tom Dean. The proposed deal is some city owned land on the West Side of the city for the Los Cerritos Wetlands on the East Side of the city. At first blush, this sounds like a pretty good deal where the owner of the wetlands gets some land he could develop and the city gets some open space that they can preserve for their citizens, but the devil is always in the details.

Long Beach Press-Telegram Article

It seems there is soil impacted with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) at the wetland site that is confusing the issue, along with other potential roadblocks. This is not entirely surprising considering that there are electrical transformers on the wetlands property powering the oil well pumps and those transformers have likely been there long before the 1979 PCB ban.

Although no longer commercially produced in the United States, PCBs may be present in products and materials produced before 1979. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the products that may contain PCBs include Transformers and capacitors, voltage regulators, high voltage switches, electromagnets, hydraulic oil, fluorescent light ballasts, thermal insulation, oil-based paint, and some construction mastic materials.

The EPA is conducting a sampling program and will be performing a risk assessment for the wetlands that will likely include PCBs and other oil-field related compounds. This is not an uncommon process, the part that I do find uncommon is that the City of Long Beach is having this investigation performed by the EPA and that it is happening so late in the game. The EPA does good work and has some very good scientists and engineers at their disposal, but they are a governmental agency and move at the pace that you would expect a governmental agency to move. A private consulting firm would be able to conduct the sampling and risk assessment that the EPA is doing in far less time. This timing is becoming a factor as the property owner has only given the City of Long Beach until the end of the calendar year (December 31st) to make a decision, and I can almost guarantee that the EPA will not have their investigation completed at that time, let alone the reporting on the investigation or the risk assessment.

I wish the best of luck to the City of Long Beach and the property owner but this deal sounds like it is beginning to sour. As a citizen of the City of Long Beach, I am hoping I can assist the city in this manner but so far they haven’t taken me up on my offer. Strange, seeing as how they are turning down free consulting but that is their prerogative.