Dirty Property

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.

For this post, I thought I would continue on a subject that I began a couple of years ago on this blog:

Regulatory FAQ
?????????Regulatory FAQ II
and
Definition of Terms

Those posts described the basic steps associated with investigation of your standard corner retail gas station. For this post, let’s assume that you own an industrial facility of some sort. Either you owned the property and leased it to a widget manufacturer or you are the widget manufacturer and you own the property were you do your work. For whatever reason, the decision has been made to close the widget factory and sell the property. To do so, you will have to decommission all the various parts of the facility. A vital step in this process is what is called the, “Hazardous Materials Inventory”. This process will identify everything from mercury switches in thermostats and PCBs in light ballasts to large storage tanks and make recommendations for the appropriate method(s) for their decommissioning.

Let’s just say that a portion of this facility was used as a steam cleaning area with floor drains that conveyed the wash-down water into the sanitary sewer. Before the wash-down water went into the sanitary sewer, it flowed through a three-stage clarifier to allow the solids to settle out. All of this is a very common feature in industrial facilities. The Hazardous Materials Inventory identified the use of chlorinated solvents, specifically TCE, during the 1970s in various parts of the property including the steam cleaning area. Based on these findings, the recommendations are to advance soil borings in the area of the steam cleaning area, the floor drains, and the three-stage clarifier. The data collected from this investigation will allow us to evaluate how much soil (if any) around of the steam cleaning area is impacted with TCE and / or anything that was being washed off the widgets that were being steam cleaned.

Can’t wait to hear the next part? What do we do? How much do we have to dig out? How much will it cost? How long will it take to do all the work? Well, it takes a couple weeks to get data back from the lab and write the report. Check back next month!

I got an email today from the EPA and I think it is just funny. Apparently the EPA is suing the parent company of clothing company “The North Face”. I have done quite a bit of outdoor stuff including rock climbing, hiking, mountain biking and the like and I think that most of the “Outdoor clothing” stuff that is out there is just plain silly. I particularly thought it was strange, useless, and tasteless marketing when outdoor clothing companies started selling clothes that claimed to be UV resistant so that you don’t get sunburned, insect repellent, and fungus resistant so that it doesn’t start to stink after a few days of use. It turns out that aside from my opinion, these claims have legal implications and specifically are a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The specific problem that the EPA appears to have is when The North Face sells products with “Unsubstantiated antimicrobial properties”. I can understand this, but the antimicrobial properties are focused on stink and not necessarily on people’s health. I like that The North Face is getting challenged for this crazy marketing strategy, but I would prefer that the EPA get back to business on real issues because they definitely have bigger fish to fry.

‘The North Face’ Clothing Parent Company Facing Nearly $1M in Federal Fines Following Unsubstantiated Product Claims
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has filed suit against San Leandro based VF Corporation for the alleged sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides through their retail company, The North Face.
The EPA maintains that The North Face made unsubstantiated public health claims regarding unregistered products, and their ability to control germs and pathogens — a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Products discovered online and evidence found at The North Face retail store in San Francisco led the Agency to issue a complaint against the VF Corporation.
“The EPA takes very seriously its responsibility to enforce against companies that sell products with unsubstantiated antimicrobial properties,” said Katherine Taylor, associate director of the Communities and Ecosystems Division in EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “Unverified public health claims can lead people to believe they are protected from disease-causing organisms when, in fact, they may not be.”
At issue were more than 70 styles of footwear that incorporated an AgION silver treated footbed. The company sold the products making unsubstantiated claims that the footwear would prevent disease-causing bacteria. Specifically, The North Face made the following public health claims about the footwear on-line and on product packaging:
• “AgION antimicrobial silver agent inhibits the growth of disease-causing bacteria”
• “Prevents bacterial and fungal growth”
• Continuous release of antimicrobial agents
After being contacted by EPA, The North Face stopped making claims that their footwear protects against germs, removed claims from their website, and revised their product packaging.
Products that 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 directions. Consumers should be careful to look for the EPA registration number printed on product labels, and to follow the directions for proper use.
For more information please visit: http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2000-1.pdf