Blog

Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. has been awarded two contracts with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet-Division of Environmental Analysis.  One is a two year contract for Statewide Underground Storage Tank/Hazardous Materials Services (UST/HazMat).  This is a work order-based contract with a value of $2,000,000. Services for this contract include investigating and remediating UST/HazMat sites on highway right-of-ways prior to highway construction.  Linebach Funkhouser has been providing these services as a pre-qualified consultant since 2003.

The second is a two year contract for Statewide Environmental Investigations and Remediation Services for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet-owned facilities.  This is also a work order-based contract with a value of $2,000,000.  Services for this contract include Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CECRLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) based site assessments, evaluations, remedial plans and compliance reviews in accordance with RCRA, CERCLA, the Clean Water Act and related US EPA regulations, and Kentucky UST regulations.  This contract covers facilities located in Highway Districts 1-6.  Linebach Funkhouser has been providing these services as a pre-qualified consultant since 2006.

Linebach Funkhouser is a pre-qualified consultant with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in the following areas:

• HAZMAT Preliminary Site Assessment
• HAZMAT Site Reconnaissance
• HAZMAT Remediation Services
• UST Preliminary Site Assessment
• UST Leak Detection/Monitoring
• UST Removal/Disposal
• UST Site Remediation Services

----------------------------

Mr. Russell Brooks, manager of these contracts, has worked with Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. for nearly 10 years.  In his current role, Mr. Brooks leads the government services group assisting various local, state and federal clients with soil, water, and waste issues.  Mr. Brooks can be reached by calling 502.895.5009.

BY: Bradley L. Coyle, CHMM

President Barrack Obama may have actually inadvertently saved jobs recently when he asked EPA's administrator, Lisa Jackson, to withdraw the agency's draft for more stringent ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  By some estimates, the new ozone standard may have cost as much as $700 billion in negative economic impact as well as potentially costing as many as 7 million jobs by the year 2020(1).

It's obvious that no one wants to breathe dirty air but, the reality is that the ozone standards are already pretty tight.  I'm neither a health nut nor a toxicologist but, it's likely getting to the point that the cost to bring the NAAQ down is not likely to have a significant positive effect on human health.   In short, the costs of tightening the standard would likely outweigh the benefit.  This particular NAAQ falls in to the law of 'Diminishing Returns'.

I've read where the numbers of asthmatics has increased by 70%+ over the past 15 years(2).  Odd, isn't it?  We've made HUGE strides to better the air quality through the addition of various pieces of legislation and stringent permitting programs over the past 40 years yet these types of air quality-driven illnesses rise?  Sure…some of it is diagnosis and understanding of the ailments but, will driving an ozone NAAQ further towards the floor be actually advantageous from a health standpoint, or will it simply continue to slow economic growth and reduce the United State's overall economic well-being?

The tip of the iceberg was revealed by allowing the proposed ozone NAAQ to be shelved.  This, in my opinion, was a very good thing in today's economic times and offered a level of recognition that many of the regulations in the pipeline or coming out are BAD for the overall good of Americans.  What has failed to be recognized is the cost of many other burdensome pieces of air regulation that are still 'in the wild' and will be law (or may have already become law); these will cost Americans more in nearly every aspect of their lives.  The boiler MACT, the utility MACT, transport rule… the list goes on and on in to what has even been called the regulatory 'Train Wreck'(3).

Again, we all want great air(4).  We all want to be healthy.  We all want to live long and prosper (yes, I'm giving the Vulcan Salute while typing)… but, where's the line and is there a line?  So far, this administration's focus has been at the edge of overly burdensome, in my opinion.  Further though, it is my opinion that President Obama should be recognized for shelving this legislation while in the heart of an economic downturn.  Overall though - the bulk of the iceberg is still below water and poses a SIGNIFICANT threat to how we operate as Americans(5).

(1)     http://www.mapi.net/Filepost/ER-707.pdf

(2)     http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba598/

(3)      http://www.alec.org/docs/EPA-TRAIN-WRECK-2011-Final-Full-printres.pdf

(4)      http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/a-clean-air-regulation-  hazardous-to-health/

(5)      http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/02/statement-president-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards

______

Mr. Coyle has worked with Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. for nearly 10 years.  In his current role, Mr. Coyle leads the environmental compliance group assisting various nationwide clientele with air, water, and waste issues.  Mr. Coyle can be reached by calling 502.895.5009.

By: Bradley Coyle, CHMM

EPA has, yet again, been tasked with a reissuance of a very controversial rule - the Boiler MACT.  The DC Circuit Court mandated that EPA issue a proposed rule and, as such, they have.  MACT, of course, is an acronym for Maximum Achievable Control Technology and is designated by utilizing the top performing 'units' in the country.  Normally, EPA will take an individual unit (boiler, in this case) and assess its emissions.  Quite different on this round though - EPA, rather, took the top 12% of boilers operating 'in the wild' and cherry-picked their constituents of concern.  Fine, right?  Not this time - they actually took the best performers on INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS rather than the entire sweep of chemicals that they are wishing to regulate under this MACT.  In short, if Boiler A had great numbers for mercury emissions but lousy numbers for particulate matter, they only took the mercury emissions in to account for promulgation of the rule.

Like it or not, the MACT is in the pipeline and will plop out the end in due time - in fact, the latest word is as early as the beginning of next year with the final rule also going in for the 2012 year.  Here's who will be snagged by this MACT:

1. Major sources of HAPs that burn coal, biomass, natural gas (or equivalent) or liquid fuels.  Needless to say, if you're a major for HAPs and have a boiler, you're likely in…
2. Minor sources of HAPs that burn coal.  Nope, not a worry for you if you're a natural gas burner.  You're not in this round… maybe later but, not yet.

Of course, there are twists and turns within the MACT - for example, emergency fuels and such but, for the most part, you're in if you're one of the above.

But, wait a minute - didn't EPA 'stay' the Boiler MACT?  Yep.  They did but, ONLY FOR MAJOR SOURCES.  The JJJJJJ MACT (Boilers for minor HAP sources) is still out there, coming down the pipe, and will require you to conduct an energy audit and will establish a few additional hoops to jump through depending on if you're above or below the 10 million BTU threshold.

For Minor Sources only - a reporting deadline is RAPIDLY approaching and will be upon you before you know it.  Simply put, it's a reporting deadline to declare applicability to the MINOR SOURCE MACT.  The due date to have this to your regulatory agency (federal, state, local) is September 17, 2011.  This means it's time to get on the ball and get your notification in if it is applicable to your source.

For more information on the Boiler MACTs - or any of the other 130+ MACTs, let us know.  We are currently assisting major and minor sources from metal cutting to surface coating and a variety of other source categories subject to 40 CFR Part 60 (NSPS) and 63 (MACT).

______

Mr. Coyle has worked with Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. for nearly 10 years.  In his current role, Mr. Coyle leads the environmental compliance group assisting various nationwide clientele with air, water, and waste issues.  Mr. Coyle can be reached by calling 502.895.5009.

On April 1, LFI celebrated with employees its 9th anniversary.  "I had a great time. It was really nice to celebrate this event with everyone of LFI and I hope it's a tradition that continues." -Kegan McKinney, Staff Geologist. All employees were present for the party and contributed to the festive environment. There were homemade hot wings, baked cookies, country ham and various beverages. LFI would like to take this opportunity to thank family, clients, and friends who have helped us reached this milestone. We look forward to celebrating our 10th anniversary with you. Thank you!

By: Kathleen Wissel

It is Monday and you are in the beginning of the weekly routine of production meetings, operation schedules and to-do lists. Then surprise… an environmental inspector arrives at your facility! Now what? The following pointers for dealing with surprise inspections may be helpful:

Number 1 - Remain calm. Your first reaction might be to panic, but don't! It is ok to be nervous, but remember that you can always practice inspections with management or consultants.  (Hint: It's a good idea to conduct internal audits on a routine basis and to have various members of the sites' team participate so that they understand what may be expected of them during a real inspection!)

Number 2 - Ask for Identification or a business card. This might sound like a no brainer, but if it is a new inspector you will want to document this for your records. (Most inspectors will show their State Agency issued badges or will provide a business card upon arrival)

Number 3 - Identification of lead person. Communicate to the inspector that a certain person will be the overall contact during the audit.  The key individual (normally the site's EHS Manager) will be generally responsible for dealing with the inspector, providing follow-up information, and filing the necessary internal reports/documentation associated with the inspection. The office administrator or secretary and others in the plant front office should be informed of a set procedure to follow and whom to contact when an inspector arrives. Also, have a back up person in place because you never know when you might need them.

Number 4 - Expeditious Review.  Most regulations and guidance will stipulate that 'expeditious review' of records and documents should be available.  This means that you cannot 'stall' the inspector with gobblygook in the front lobby.  When they show up, it's time to let the rubber meet the road and get going.  If you need to call in an external resource, it's always a good idea to do that before you head to the lobby to meet the inspector.  Further, explaining to the inspector that someone else will be assisting, if that's the case, is a good idea.  Kick the inspection off with a 'kick-off' meeting to establish the who, why, what, and where that the inspector is expecting to accomplish.

Number 5 - Plant Tour. Plan the plant tour very carefully! The inspector will probably ask to see equipment in operation.  You are in the "tour guide" so take the most desirable direct path to the specific equipment.

Number 6 - Show only requested information. Many large corporations have internal policies to provide only data that is requested; nothing more.  LFI recommends maintaining different binders for the air, water and waste (or other media where you may be inspected). This method will allow you to be in control of the data that the inspector sees and reduces the risk of potential record NOVs.  (HINT: Computer documentation is often beneficial however, it can be a bombardment of data on an inspector.  Be sure to establish that you're providing the data that the inspector is seeking to avoid potential problems).

Number 7 - Photographs. The inspector might request to take digital photographs of equipment, processes or other related items during the inspection. It is important to know your company's policy on photography in the plant. If you allow photography in the facility, request copies of all photographs in the inspection report (remember though, the inspection report is publically available so, if sensitive information/data is contained within the pictures, you may wish for them to be separated and marked confidential - or disallow pictures all together).

Number 8 - Inspection Documentation.  There is an old saying that everyone has 20/20 hindsight. After (and during) the inspection, take specific and plentiful notes! Document important things like the inspector, date, equipment visited, and records reviewed. Also note how you think you did and areas for improvement. Taking notes is one way to improve the next time.

Number 9 - Inspection Summary.  Often the inspector will provide a "pink copy" of the inspection notes to you. If not, you might want to ask the inspector for a verbal summary of the inspection. Inspectors will usually describe the good and the improvement areas of your facility.  Better yet, see if he/she will allow you to copy his/her notes on the photocopier.

Number 10 - Inspector is a Person.  Remember, the inspector is there to do a job and the inspection shouldn't be viewed as an 'us versus them' death match cage fight.  It can be very challenging at times to work with inspectors, but it is important to remember that they are a person too! You probably will be working with this person for months and years to come and the relationship that you form with them does impact inspection conditions when they arrive.   Relationships are tough to establish at times, but in the long run, it's our experience that a strong and open relationship with the site inspector will go a long way in making an inspection more simplistic and will, overall, benefit the facility (and your sanity during the inspection).

LFI was recently selected through a competitive bidding process as the consultant of choice for two U.S. EPA Brownfield Assessment Grants in the State of Kentucky.  The Northern Kentucky Area Development District (NKADD) selected LFI for their $200,000 community-wide petroleum assessment grant.  NKADD wishes to identify suspect brownfield sites within the Licking River Greenway and utilize the allocated funds to assess selected sites via Phase I and Phase II assessments.

The City of Owensboro, Kentucky selected LFI for their $400,000 hazardous waste and petroleum sites assessment grants.  Owensboro wishes to identify suspect brownfield sites across their entire community and utilize the allocated funds to assess selected sites via Phase I and Phase II assessments.

Additional grant activities will include remedial planning, community outreach and subsequent reporting.  The approved grant process is a 3 year time commitment.

Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. (LFI), a professional environmental firm based in Louisville, Kentucky, has been an Advocate Level Member of the Kentucky Excellence in Environmental Leadership (KY EXCEL) program since 2009.  A key component of the KY EXCEL program is the completion of voluntary environmental projects by its members.  In accordance with this goal, LFI has been proud to offer a series of seminars to encourage positive environmental stewardship through education.

LFI conducted a series of seven half-day environmental workshops during 2009 and 2010 in the Kentucky cities of Mayfield, Lexington, Louisville, Owensboro, Bowling Green, Florence, and Jeffersonville, Indiana.    Approximately 50 people attended the workshops entitled "Basics of Assessing & Remediating Environmentally Affected Property - What Non-Technical Decision Makers Should Know".  The workshops were specifically designed to provide the decision makers involved in acquiring, developing, and managing environmentally affected properties with a working knowledge and understanding of technical environmental components associated with affected properties.  Information was provided on Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and remediation options in a simple and straight-forward manner to give non-technical professionals the proper tools to make informed decisions.

The workshops included presentations by staff members from the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection's Brownfields Program.  They provided information on the basics of Brownfields as well as information on funding mechanisms in-place to encourage property redevelopment.

Established in March of 2002, LFI's full-time staff of 18 professionals routinely provide expertise on a wide range of projects throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.  By carefully managing our client base and workload, LFI senior personnel stay directly involved in the oversight of each project so that clients receive personalized attention from highly experienced professionals.  LFI's diversified staff includes experts in regulatory negotiation, environmental permitting and compliance, remediation, and Brownfields redevelopment.  LFI is also very flexible in establishing workable contractual conditions and providing prompt responses to meet tight schedules.

By: Charles Leachman, P.G. - LFI Senior Geologist

Vapor Intrusion is the pathway from a subsurface contaminant source into overlying buildings.  The predominant compounds of concern are volatile organic compounds with benzene, PCE, and TCE comprising nearly 95% of all vapor intrusion issues.

Impacted soil and groundwater have been regulated for many years, but currently less than half of our 50 states have any published regulations or regulatory guidance regarding vapor intrusion.  The US EPA only has Draft Guidance on the topic.  Impacted soil may be particularly detrimental to construction workers and small children exposed to the specific areas where impacted soils exist.  Impacted groundwater is a significant concern to humans who may utilize this as a source for drinking water.  Impacted vapors have the potential to negatively affect all things exposed.

With respect to groundwater issues, the source area of the problem can usually readily be identified, and there are generally numerous options available to remediate the impact, including the use of an alternate supply source.  Vapor intrusion tends to be more difficult to assess, as multiple potential sources within the home (stored chemicals, cleaners, HVAC emissions, etc.) complicate the investigation process.  Vapor intrusion remediation can be as easy as installing a fan to as complicated as laying down an extensive engineered barrier system.  Vapor intrusion investigations are typically performed in office buildings or residences, which makes ramifications much more personal to further complicate matters.

Vapor intrusion investigation is often the first item left off the list when dealing with soil/groundwater plume contamination scenarios.  Lack of knowledge regarding indoor air quality issues and cost considerations tend to contribute to the omission of an indoor air/vapor intrusion evaluation.

LFI is a leader in vapor intrusion and vapor intrusion investigation/mitigation.  Our experience includes extensive assessment work for the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection to evaluate petroleum-based soil vapor intrusion source areas in a fractured bedrock setting; evaluation of private-sector client issues related to vapor emissions originating from groundwater affected by chlorinated solvents; and the assessment of potential vapor intrusion impacts to indoor air in a concession stand at a city park located near a former dump site.  LFI staff has undergone advanced soil vapor intrusion training at strategic workshops in Seattle, Los Angeles, and Norfolk.  We have helped educate our peers and the public through vapor intrusion presentations to the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce and the Kentuckiana Chapter of Hazardous Material Managers.

While the degree of risk may be debatable, vapor intrusion is now on the radar of regulators and is here to stay.  Contact Charles Leachman at cleachman@lfienvironmental.com or (502) 721-5714 for more information or further guidance on these issues.