News from Ecobility

ASTM E 1527-13 - Coming Soon?

Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:30:12 -0700

AS reported by Environmental Data Resources,Inc’s Industry Alert, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has has ruled that ASTM E 1527-13 standard meets the requirements for conducting All Appropriate inquiries under CERCLA. The ruling is open for public comment through September 16, 2013. If final approval is given by the EPA, the new standard will take effect November 13, 2013.

This standard is used in the preparation of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for most commercial real estate transactions. Significant changes include further clarification and multiple distinctions regarding recognized environmental conditions, inclusion of vapor contamination migration, as well as increased scrutiny on the conditions of surrounding properties. Client’s can expect modifications to their current report formats to accommodate the changes. Some increased costs may occur as a result of additional reviews of agency files on surrounding properties.

California Public Health Officials Propose Chromium 6 Standard

Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:18:24 -0700

As reported on the California Department of Public Health website, on August 23, 2013 CDPH announced in the California Regulatory Notice Register the availability of the proposed 0.010-milligram per liter MCL for hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) for public comment. The public comment period begins on August 23 and ends at 5:00 pm on October 11, 2013. CDPH will hold public hearings in Sacramento and in Los Angeles on October 11, 2013, to receive comments on the proposed regulations. Written comments may be submitted to the Office of Regulations (OOR) (see information on submitting comments). As required by the Administrative Procedure Act, all comments, whether written or presented at the public hearings, will be responded to in the final statement of reasons. Follow this link to OOR for the notice of proposed rulemaking (which includes times and locations of the hearings), the text of the proposed regulations, the initial statement of reasons, and other pertinent information.

The proposed standard is approximately 500 times higher than that recommended in 2011 by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The CDPH officials state, as reported in the by Bettina Boxall in the Los Angeles Times, that the revised proposal includes consideration of available treatment technology and economics.

The more common Chromium III standard remains the same at 50 parts per billion in California.

High Speed Rail/Water - State Legislature Chooses

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:58:31 -0700

California’s legislature made some important decisions last week that will shape the future of the State. With a narrow victory, the state Senate passed SB 1029 appropriating $4.8 billion dollars of state funds and $3.28 billion of federal funds for the High Speed Rail Project. This move allows construction to begin on the project that proposes to link northern California with southern California with what has become known as a “bullet train”. Construction is been proposed to begin in the Modesto area for a train station with initial funding also being used by the termination points of the rail.

In a second major decision in a week, the Legislature approved AB 1422 that will postpone putting the “Water Bond” that was integral to the Water Conservation Action of 2009 and the California’s Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. A major consensus was achieved in 2009 to pass the comprehensive initiative that addressed issues in the Bay Delta, water conveyance to Central and Southern California, water quality, groundwater management, and water projects in the western Sierra Nevada Mountains. Unfortunately, funding for this act was tied to a bond measure originally planned for November 2010 and subsequently moved to the November 2012 ballot. If the water bond passed on the 2012 ballot it would have allowed the state to borrow 11.1 billion dollars for the program. Last week’s vote has again postponed the voters for weighing in on funding of this comprehensive water endeavor until November 2014.

Is the coincidental passage of these two bills a message of priority of transportation over water in California? Although many talk as visionaries of what California needs and wants for its future, federal funding sources for California are likely the main drivers in the priority. At a time when the Governor has planned propositions on the November ballot to raise taxes, borrowing additional money through a bond measure does not seem prudent.

At the end of the day, Californians and especially the leadership in California, have to decide what California will look like in the future. Will it still be a major agricultural force in the world and a top contributor to the state’s economy, or will we be a more urbanized state with commuters in the Central Valley traveling to the Bay Area and Southern California daily for work. Water, transportation, and our economy will decide the fate of the state either through deliberate, well thought out consensus and planning or by happenstance.

CALIFORNIA REA PROGRAM ELIMINATED!

Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:32:26 -0700

REA PROGRAM ELIMINATED! – the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) informed all registered environmental assessor’s yesterday that they were terminating the REA program as of 2012. According to SB 1018 signed by the governor in June, as of July 1^st the REA program no longer exists. The program elimination was part of the larger debt reduction package put through by the State of California. DTSC had volunteered the program as a measure of cost cutting because in their eyes the program was redundant with program specific requirements and in conflict with federal environmental standards. DTSC says that the “elimination of the REA Program will standardize requirements for environmental professionals conducting environmental assessments under other statutory programs, and make them consistent with federal requirements.”

The REA Program was first started to register environmental assessors to help ensure consistent high quality professionals are practicing in California. The program consisted of two tiers, the REA I and the more comprehensive REA II designation. Registration required submittal of education and background, vast volumes of information demonstrating and verifying the individual’s experience on all aspects of environmental consulting, and recommendations from peers, supervisors, and professionals in the industry. This process was repeated every 5 years to demonstrate the individual’s current capabilities. REA II registration was required for all environmental work for public schools in California. No information was released regarding how school programs will change and how those programs will be administered.

Although the REA program has been seen by many as catchall for environmental professionals that are not registered geologists or engineers and largely unnecessary, the program may have secondary consequences such as evidence of qualification for individuals working under non-DTSC programs. One example is the use of the REA registration as a means of verifying qualification under ASTM E 1527-05 as an Environmental Professional. ASTM E 1527-05 is the basis for conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESAs) that would qualify for conducting an “All Appropriate Inquiry” compatible assessment under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) often referred to as the Superfund statute. Although there are other means to qualify as a professional, elimination of the REA program may affect some individuals conducting this work in California. As always, Clients that rely on Phase I ESAs as one means of protection against CERCLA liability should verify the qualifications of those providing these services.

BEES, BEES, BEES… Editorial by Michael Mooradian, Principal

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:14:11 -0700

For the past three months we have had a hive of bees make its home in a sprinkler valve box in our backyard. Although we—including my boxer, Ivy—were stung on occasion, we pretty much left the bees alone and they left us alone.

Bees are an indicator species and the primary pollinizers of most plants and trees. In the fruit basket of the country, the great Central Valley of California, bees are the essential component of tree pollination and ultimately the development of the fruit we love to eat. During the early spring, you will see white boxes stacked in various orchards, groves, and fields. These are the portable home to bees. Through our own personal experience, we find that bees tend to pollinate one field at a time. What do I mean? If you bring in a hive a little to early to pollinate your orchard of cherries, and the next block has an almond orchard ready, the bees will fly to the almond orchard and stay there until pollination is complete. Even with the hive being in the cherry orchard, the bees will wait until the almond orchard is complete before starting on the cherries.

But, there is great concern now that honeybee populations are rapidly declining. No one is really sure the reason for the decline, although there is a lot of speculation that mites may be the cause of colony collapse disorder. In any case, Apiologists are working furiously to find the cause and ultimately the solution. Why the concern? As I said earlier, bees are an indicator species for all of us. If bees were all eliminated today, and therefore pollination all but disappears, many scientists believe our food supplies would be reduced so severely that there would be insufficient food supplies to support our current population within three years!

Back to my yard. After having the gardeners and others stung on occasion—one even filed a workman’s compensation claim—it was time to have the bees removed. We started by calling Vector Control through our city’s web page where we answered a number of questions and then awaited a call back from the Los Angeles County Vector Control Office. After a couple of hours we received a call back about scheduling a time when they could dispatch a technician to eradicate the bees. WAIT! Who said anything about eradication?

“Do you remove and relocate the bees?” I asked.

“No, sir, we will come out and spray the bees,” they told me. “Please make sure you keep your pets inside for at least the afternoon after we spray.”

Our response was thanks, but no thanks. Why, if there is such concern about bees, would our government believe the strategy is to eradicate? In fact, when I asked if they could remove the hive, the answer was no. Their procedure was to kill the bees. I asked if they had a list of beekeepers that we might contact to collect the hive; they said there was no such list. I thanked them and thankfully didn’t give them my address!

Subsequently, I hired a service to remove the hive. This company brings to the hive to a clearinghouse location where backyard beekeepers can come and pick the bees for relocation. There are also a number of associations and nonprofit groups that will also come and collect hives.

But the elephant in the room is, why does a government agency look to eradication with chemicals as its only solution to bees? It seems that both the individual and the larger community would be better served to relocate hive or make it available to others, such as the various beekeeping associations, for there use. Seems like the question we all should be asking.

Delta Smelt: Why is such a Small Fish so Important to California?

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:25:30 -0800

The Delta Smelt have been known to stop the flow of water from the California Delta to over 25 million people as thousands of acres of land that feed to world. Yesterday, The Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-delta-smelt-20110202,0,527655.story) published an informative piece on the history of the research on the fish as well as why many see the importance in the protection of the species.

Inherently, the article brings up strong points regarding the uniqueness of California with an analogy to large retail box stores replacing the mom and pop shops that we hear so much about. It also shows how the complex issues surrounding the protection of this species are but a small part in the overall economic and political factors that shadow the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Issues include the entrenched and productive agriculture in the Delta, impacts of treated sewage effluent on water quality from up river metropolitan areas, the high risk and costs associated with the dikes that protect Delta properties, the impacts to freshwater supplies from the encroachment of seawater, the need for water in the agriculturally thirsty western San Joaquin Valley, and the extended reach of southern California to replenish dwindling water supplies to support its swelling population. As stated many times before, it behooves all Californians to be informed on the issues before we cast our opinions and votes as to how we move forward with managing our water resources, the true lifeblood of California.

Seawater the New Drinking Water?

Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:38:34 -0800

Desalinization of seawater is a process that has been under development globally over the last few decades. Processes have primarily been divided between reverse osmosis and distillation. In the mid 1970s, distillation was used in the U.S. to attempt to remove salt from seawater through evaporative processes. However, the cost of energy at that time made the process largely economically infeasible. The development of reverse osmosis systems offered promise in the U.S. and has been the primary mechanism that has been under development for the past 30 to 40 years. Luckily these systems were desired in the Middle East where energy costs were disproportionately lower than the high cost of water supplies.

Desalinization plants have been rapidly growing in arid environments in proximity to the oceans. Five years ago virtually no operational plants were operating in Australia whereas today nearly every major metropolitan area in the country is either in the process of constructing or operating a desalinization plant. In contrast, desalinization in California has been very limited until recently due to a myriad of regulations with numerous government agencies as well as critics proposing that these systems are still to costly. A Carlsbad plant has been in development for over 10 years with hopes of being in construction in early 2011. A number of additional plants are in the planning stage along the California coast. As more of these plants near the permitting stage, California will need to streamline the process to encourage development while protecting the environment. Green jobs and needed water supplies will need to be weighed against the increased cost of our water supplies and the trickle down cost of goods in the future. For more information please see http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-desalination-20101204,0,4922065.story.

Chromium in Hinkley - The Sequel

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:12:00 -0800

The spread of chromium in groundwater was big news in the 1990s with the releases from PG&E becoming public through the advocacy of Erin Brockovich for the residents in Hinkley, California. The Los Angeles Times reports that over $333 million was paid out to residents to settle lawsuits. PG&E has been working on mitigating the plume and established containment boundaries that it monitors regularly. Although remediation continues on the plume, in recent months it has been reported that the plume has migrated approximately 1800 feet beyond the containment boundary. This information has sparked health and property concerns by local residents. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region is overseeing the activities of PG&E and has reported that the current level of effort by PG&E is insufficient and that more work is required to contain and mitigate the plume. For more information see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hinkley-chromium-20101115,0,4878497.story

Water Wars in California?

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:29:00 -0700

The water wars are heating up in California as drought conditions have been prolonged. Will the water needs of the big cities trump the requirements of the “bread basket of the world”? Although some see this as north versus central versus south and others a rural-big city issue – and all environmental protection versus the economic standard of life, water in California fractionates in many directions and is a major issue both directly and indirectly in the upcoming elections. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Fresh battle between local water adversaries” isn’t fresh at all but a snapshot of issues statewide. Surplus water in the agriculture regions of the Imperial Valley has promulgated water management officials of the Imperial Irrigation District to meet the terms of a long –standing agreement. The agreement is interpreted by the district as requiring the release of water into the rapidly depleting Salton Sea for any water savings from fallowing farmlands or implementing water conservation measures. This move has in turn caused major backlash from the Metropolitan Water District that claims any excess water must be released to them for their customers in Southern California (reference). Both reference a 2003 water agreement brokered by past presidential administrations but each has a different interpretation of the agreement and the water lawyers are in the starting blocks waiting for the gun. It is well known that water rights in the West are complex in comparison to the typical riparian rights in much of the country but California takes it to a whole new level. Our forefathers attempted to meld both the riparian, appropriative, and prescriptive rights and over the years we have added adjudication to the mix. All have seen the classic movie “Chinatown” the story set in the background of Los Angeles appropriating water from the Owens Valley in the 1920s, but note to all: You can change the names, perspectives and date but these types of controversies in California live on. There has to be a new movie somewhere on this topic in the works but I suspect we will have to wait to include the upcoming election results into the story. In the meantime, we all need to be aware that water is an essential component of this state’s sustainability and growth. See the Los Angeles Times article at http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/18/local/la-me-water-20101018

Point of Use Water Treatment & Grants Approved

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:01:00 -0700

Governor Schwarzenegger signed California Assembly Bill 2515, sponsored by State Assembly Member Manuel Perez allows the state public health department to enact emergency regulations to govern the permitted us of point of entry or point of use water treatment by public water systems in severely disadvantaged communities in lieu of expensive centralized treatment. The bill was designed with the Coachella Valley in mind where high concentrations of arsenic in groundwater in the east side of the valley where thousands of mobile home residents rely on local well water where high concentrations of arsenic have been detected. The bill also provides a mechanism for emergency funding for the purchase of point of use and point of entry treatment filters that range from $135 to $300 per household. The bill remains in effect as a short-term solution with grant money available until January 2014. Local officials state that the long-term solution is a $22 million pipeline to the west valley where supplies are centrally treated but that such an endeavor is still years off for completion.

Original story.

Legislature moves CARB toward transparency

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:51:00 -0700

SB1402 signed by Governor Schwarzenegger that will require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to make available to the public alledged violations, penalties and final agreements of parties. The bill is seen as means of requiring the CARB to explain its fines and become a more transparent agency. Senator Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga, who introduced the Act said “The problem is that there was nothing that held CARB accountable in how the penalties were determined or the reason the violation”.

Original story.

Governator honest about new CEQA bills

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:40:00 -0700

California Governor signs and says AB 231 and SB1456 are 99% garbage and doesn’t make a dent into the problems caused by the spaghetti-like requirements of CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California’s version of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is the regulatory process required for public and private developments to assess potential impacts proposed activities will have on the environment. The process is important in protecting the state’s environmental resources and quality of life of its citizens but the process is often lengthy and often contradictory to the objectives of the Act.

Original story