Environmental Consultant

Expert Portal - Zintro.com

2009-11-17T11:46:00.000-08:00

There is a new web page designed to meet the needs of both experts and those who need experts, it is called www.zintro.com. The site is in the beta testing stage, but fills a much needed void. Searching for an expert through normal search engines is very time consuming, searching though zintro is relatively easy. As for the experts this is a great way to increase your client relationship list. Check it out. If you want to go directly to my part of this site go here: http://www.zintro.com/expert/Nick_Patz. And if you would prefer to read what the media has to say about zintro.com in a more complete kind of way follow this link: http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/29/zintros-pay-by-the-call-service-connects-investors-others-with-industry-experts/

Cost of Phase I ESAs

2009-11-11T08:41:00.000-08:00

OMG!! I was online this morning doing some Google searching and found an ad for a nationwide firm that sells Phase I ESAs for $1500 anywhere in the US. I have to tell you that it is very dangerous to get such a product. I have been involved in the Phase I industry since 1984 when the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act passed congress and spawned the industry. I was a member of the original ASTM committee that wrote the 1993 guidance document. You cannot produce a good Phase I report for $1500. If we use a strip mall as an average property, it will take a good, experienced consultant about 20-24 hours to produce the report. There will be one hour of senior review, and then the production and outside services come to about $250 for each report. If you pay $1500 you are either getting a consultant to conduct the Phase I who is extremely desperate or not qualified. A good Phase I takes a perceptive, experienced individual who can find environmental problems at a site, if they exist. It is designed to give the purchaser protection under the CERCLA innocent landowner defense, and that is a weighty obligation to surrender to a substandard provider. Beware of what you order and your purpose for ordering. EDR came out with a recent survey that reported the average price of Phase Is in the US is now $2530, which is probably adequate. This price has come down over the last year due to economic conditions. Paying too much less than this may cause you problems that you had not considered. A Phase I is much more than something you use to check a box for a loan document.

Commercial Foreclosure Woes

2009-09-09T14:30:00.001-07:00

Commercial real estate foreclosures are going up and experts say they will continue to increase for the next two to three years. Banks face difficult times in foreclosing on commercial and industrial properties, because if they are not careful they could end up owning contamination that would cost more to clean up than the value of the property. Sure there are ways to stay out of that liability loop even during foreclosure, but the banks have to be very careful to make sure that they do everything according to CERCLA guidelines to retain that liability protections.

Commercial Real Estate Problems

2009-06-07T13:31:00.001-07:00

The world of banking has been in a difficult place, through their own making, for quite some time now. The president has thrown a lot of taxpayer money at the banks to solve the problem. All that stimulus does not seem to have kick started the economy. Of course, all of this bad news developed because of a mad rush to make as many home loans as possible, and making them easier and easier to get - before the BUST that is. That was the residential market. The commercial market is always a few months behind.

I was reading in a real estate magazine the other day that banks are now holding more than $34 billion in non performing commercial and industrial property loans. I have not seen anything in the press about the massive mess potential of this latest real estate debacle. Maybe it is to come, and maybe I am seeing problems that just aren't there. After all, I am just an environmental consultant.

Closing Mines

2009-06-01T09:26:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of talk lately about closing old mines. It is apparently a big safety issue and States throughout the west have initiated the process. Recently we bumped into a very nice technology that is terrific for closing mines in a safe and effective way. It would also allow for reopening the mine with minimal effort if whatever the mine was originally being used for becomes economically viable again.

We have an arrangement with a materials firm that has invented a structural polyurethane foam, that is non-toxic. It is an expandable foam that when set is the approximate consistency of a board. The material is relatively cheap. It can easily, quickly, and relatively cheaply fill the mine cavity to prevent any entry. Yet it allows for reopening with minimal effort, in the precise location of the original tunnels. This structural foam obviously has a myriad of uses beyond that of mine closures, but that does seem to be the flavor of the day.

How Expensive is Green?

2009-03-09T12:49:00.001-07:00

I was just about to write a blog on how much more it costs to build a "green" structure than a typical-construction structure. Then I ran into a blog by Barry Katz at http://www.greenworks.typepad.com/
Check it out - he does a great job.

As the World Greens

2009-03-05T10:31:00.001-08:00

It amazes me how quickly this country has turned from a majority of the people not believing that the world is warming to most everybody jumping on the green bandwagon. As my company is starting to concentrate on bringing recycling technologies and green building products to market we are finding so many interesting new products available, and a lot of interest in placing them in the market place. As a simple product, the jatropha berry bares a biodiesel from very little processing. In the Philippines there is a project where one million hectares of land is being converted to production of jatropha berries. This land will provide over 500 million gallons of biofuel every year. This is only a small step in quelling our need for fossil fuels, but it could be an important one. More new ideas later.

Green Building Products

2009-01-23T15:03:00.000-08:00

Recently I ran into a fairly old technology that was perfected. Which, I guess, makes it a new technology. It is the simple building block. It was formerly made out of cement. This one is made out of cement and recycled polystyrene (you know those white disposable cups that are used a lot for office coffee). The ration is 15% cement to 85% polystyrene. You can imagine how light these blocks are, of course making construction time quite a bit quicker. It is also noteworthy that these blocks have a higher "R" value, and they are cheaper per square foot of wall than common cement blocks. So they are cheaper, construction is more rapid, and they save energy - now that is a good combination of factors that will make the inventors very successful. The company is risking its IPO even in these economic times, because "the product is good for the world". Right now an associate is in the Middle East gathering interest - and there is a lot of interest being gathered. There is also considerable interest in the US. Fully automated manufacturing plants will be sprouting up all of the country in the next year or so. Our future is becoming greener all the time. Isn't that nice?

Finally A Change

2009-01-21T09:08:00.000-08:00

No matter one's political philosophy I think that all must admit that it was definitely time for a change in US leadership. To get a fresh and invigorated new beginning was important for all of us. Even I feel a little bit better now. The technologies so desperately needed to move forward a practical national agenda to promote renewable energies and avoid the environmental apocalypse are available. Our company has been active in promoting these technologies in various corners of the world. There is interest everywhere - except the United States where there seems to be a fear of stepping forward before someone else has tested them out. Now that is an odd way for Americans to act, wouldn't you agree? Hopefully, with a new national vitality our ability to risk success will re-emerge.

Strange Actions In Environmental Consulting

2008-11-28T20:27:00.000-08:00

I was speaking with a client the other day. He had recently become the victim of what often happens in a down real estate economy. An environmental consultant conducted a Phase I for a client of his. The Phase I made recommendations. A larger than necessary Phase II was conducted, but was not well designed, so another Phase II was recommended. The consultant got a regulator involved and the work became mandatory. Then the regulator required a health risk assessment and 7 monitoring wells. The owner of the Property is now out almost $100,000 with closure no where in site. The Property is a marina in the Sacramento River delta. There is a loss of water from the delta to the island, meaning the continuing spills from boats refueling at the docks migrates to the soil and the non-usable groundwater. It is likely that a well worded Phase I could have solved the problem and saved the owner about $97,500. But the owner is still spending, because he will be monitoring this groundwater for a long time. Every time the country gets into these economic situations, consultants start bleeding their clients. It is how the environmental consulting industry got such a bad reputation in the early 90s, and it was deserved. So this is just a word to the wise, if you pay a consultant to have a Phase I conducted these days and recommendations are made for further work, make absolutely sure that those recommendations are necessary. If you have an issue like this and want to call me, I will give you an hour of my time for free - no matter where you are (888 875-4468). My industry does not need to further sully its reputation.

1031 Exchange

2008-11-19T10:05:00.000-08:00

I just had a conversation with Wayne Gregori who has recently been experiencing great growth for his website 1031Exchange.net. I think that it would be very beneficial for many of those who read this blog to take a look at this site. If you are in the commercial real estate business you should check it out, it is a place to post your listings to help get momentum to make your sale. But the site is not just for commercial real estate brokers, it is for everyone who works in the commercial real estate industry in California. Wayne will help you set up a profile and promote your business. He did not even ask for money. And of course, if you need or know of somebody interested in a 1031 Exchange, Wayne's company (the 1031 Exchange and Services Group) has been doing that kind of work for a long time and they are the experts.

Can You Actually Buy or Not

2008-11-11T18:53:00.000-08:00

The Federal government has infused the stable banks with some lending capital. So now there is money available to borrow. The selling market is get poised to sell, if only the buyers would be ready to buy. There a lot of strange issues at play in the commercial real estate market. But based on the environmental awareness of permitting agencies it is a really good time to consider buying distressed properties, especially if they are deeply discounted. There are grants, and low-interest loans galore from state and federal agencies that will help with the environmental cleanup of urban properties. The money is available to governments, non-profits, and for profit companies. We can help guide you through some potential sources of capital infusion.

Experts Talk About Real Estate

2008-11-05T09:15:00.000-08:00

I have been out listening to experts talk about commercial real estate and the international financial "crisis' (I really don't like that term) that we find ourselves in. Both talks eventually came down to the same point of view, and that was the value of the government "bail out" of certain financial institutions. The first talk was by congressman Dan Lungren (R-Sacramento), who was re-elected by a slim margin yesterday. The congressman was mostly self-promotional but did speak to his perspective that we are nearing the bottom of the crisis and although real estate prices are not going to soar for a while, at least we should see them leveling out (thanks, of course, to the Republican leadership in the House).

The other talk was by Ray Davis (president of Umpqua Bank). Ray praised the bailout, but insisted that it was not really a bailout at all. He said that Congress was really investing in deeply discounted and troubled properties, that they would sale in a few years for a large profit that would benefit the taxpayer. He also said that the government was investing in the banks that are strong (not those that are faltering) by infusing large amounts of cash (Umpqua got $214M) in exchange for preferred stock with dividends (interest). The interest starts out to be very cheap and then gets very expensive if the infusion is not paid back in five years. Of course, the plan is for the banks to make this money available to their communities for new mortgages of all kinds. Ray is convinced that we are near the bottom of the financial crisis, as is Dan Lungren. From the perspective of a company (Ceres Associates) that makes a good portion of its living off the commercial real estate, I certainly hope they are right and not just optimistic.

Erin Brockovich

2008-10-31T08:29:00.000-07:00

The celebrity environmental investigator, Erin Brockovich, is looking into an apparent anomaly of brain tumors in Cameron, Missouri. The US EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has been investigating, although in a light kind of way, and has found nothing of significance so far. Oh, well they have found a lot of heavy metals in groundwater, but they say there is so much sediment in the water that it cannot be used for drinking. The members of the community are scared, and rightfully so. There has not been nearly enough investigation done to this point to make any real determinations and that is a shame because it is the health of citizens that we should be trying to protect. Any good environmental consultant with a reasonable budget could find the "smoking gun" in a small community of 10,000 people within a few short months. The government should hire this project out to those who do such things for a living and have to work within budgets. But in the meantime we all hope and pray that the people in Cameron, Missouri remain cancer free. Cameron is about 50 miles north of Kansas City, if you want to look it up.

Resolution Trust

2008-10-23T09:28:00.000-07:00

The world of residential real estate lending has almost brought the economy of the world to its knees, if that is what you chose to to believe. The US Federal government has sent out a "rescue bill", which most people have a hard time understanding, but many of us do understand that whatever the final amount of billions involved in the bail out, it is all coming out of our pockets. It is a part of the same idea that got us into this problem in the first place. We are mortgaging our national future without the proper vetting of our ability to repay - as a country.

If we can hold the savings and loan problem of the late 1980s as an example there is a solution to the current fiscal "crisis", and that solution once again has to belong with the Federal government. After all that is where the neo-natal aspects of this crisis started, it might as well be where it ends. The Resolution Trust Corporation of the late 1980s and early 1990s was a profitable endeavor that the government took on. What a concept! Congress needs to act quickly and the problem will be over quickly. Organize a new RTC now, and let's get back to business as usual.

Waste To Energy

2008-07-24T10:38:00.001-07:00

The concept of using our most discarded materials to generate electricity has been around for a long time. We generate an incredible amount of waste every year, commercially and in municipalities. The technology now exists to turn this waste into a renewable energy source. The costs of energy and the technology are now good enough to start mining waste, instead of drilling for oil.

There has been a lot of resistance to waste to energy (WTE) systems from environmental groups because of the older technologies which fundamentally burned the trash and used to heat to boil water, the steam then generated electricity. New technology no longer burns the waste, but gasifies it. Heat in the absence of oxygen gasifies what is inside. The gases are used as a fuel for the production of electricity. The technology is simple and available. Emissions are within standards of federal and local regulations, but there is still a reluctance to implement. So the opportunities are going overseas.

Ceres Associates is promoting the concept of WTE as best we can. We have generated some interest in the US, but permitting moves very slowly here, and any such projects will be quite a while in coming. However, in other countries the demand for WTE systems is starting to crescendo.

It is a green-house gas eliminating process. Methane is generated from landfills, and methane is one of the most dangerous of green house gases. Methane is consumed in most gasification systems. Landfill space is saved, groundwater is saved, air quality is enhanced - a lot of good happens when WTE systems are employed - not the least of which is energy generated reducing the impact of petroleum products on the environment.

One more thing, most WTE systems are very effective at destroying most hazardous wastes. This is one other small benefit.

Sustaining Environments Worldwide

2008-07-18T09:32:00.000-07:00

The tag line for Ceres Associates is "Sustaining Environments Worldwide." We have been doing that in a small way for several years now with our waste management and recycling efforts in the Middle East. Now we are taking the effort to a whole new level.

Waste to energy technology is coming down in price and the price of energy is going up. Using municipal waste to generate energy is a concept that has arrived with the push of many state governments toward using renewable energy sources. Ceres Associates has partnered with a firm that has a pyrolysis technology that reduces municipal waste volume by over 90 percent, and electricity is produced out the back end.

If you read this blog, you know about the e-waste destruction technology that we represent. What is even more interesting is the same technology can be converted to recycle tires in the most efficient way possible. Thirty percent of a tire (by weight) is petroleum. This technology recovers all of the petroleum in the tire, which is more or less equivalent to bunker fuel. The technology also recovers the metals in the tires. The rest of the material is gasified and the gasses are destroyed. There is very little residual waste material. A 300 ton per day plant will be operational in the US by the end of the year. Waste tires are a problem all over the world. This technology can solve that problem, while generating a significant profit for the owner.

Additional technologies we are looking at will take the particulates out of the smoke released by fire places, greatly reducing air pollution in colder locales. There is a new foam that has been produced that will greatly aide the ease of mitigating asbestos in building materials and ships. It is all very exciting to know that we can have an impact on reducing human impact on the climate.

More Recycling News

2008-07-11T13:26:00.000-07:00

A few months ago we published a blog about a new e-waste recycling technology and were very impressed with the technology and the potential return on investment. After a couple of trips to speak with the inventors and see the technology in action, we are definitely even more amazed than previously. The technology is versatile. That is it can be used for e-waste, then go through a short cleaning period and then recycle waste tires. But this team of inventors have many amazing recycling and other environmental technologies to share. I am scheduled to visit again this month and will write on this blog more in the future about what we have discovered.

Government Funding Sources

2008-03-06T14:17:00.001-08:00

I recently went to a conference put on by the Center for Creative Land Recycling in San Francisco called Creating Vibrant Communities: Redeveloping California’s Brownfields. There were some interesting things that I learned especially about grant and funding sources for dealing with contaminated properties. The City of Emeryville has a lot of brownfields sites, they hired Ignacio Dayritt to find them money to help ease the burden on taxpayers. You can check out some of these if they seem interesting:

Brownfield Tax Expensing Provision – This is an incentive for cleanup, maintaining, and monitoring costs. It enables developers to deduct environmental cleanup costs in the year they incur them.
Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund – If you are a reader of this blog, you have heard about this one. But it is a State fund that pays for cleanup from leaks in USTs containing fuel. There are restrictions, but it can cleanup up to $1.5M with a small deductible.
California Reuse Forgivable Loan Program – Provides low interest, forgivable loans up to $125,000 for environmental site assessments.
Targeted Site Investigation Program – The DTSC will provide municipalities upt to $100,000 in free site assessment.
US EPA Brownfield Grants – provides municipalities and non-profits various grants for Assessment, Revolving Loan Funds, and Cleanup Grants
HUD BEDI – Brownfield Economic Development Initiative targets grants for brownfields to housing redevelopment.
There are a host of funding opportunities, especially for government and non-profits. If you want more information, just give us a call.

Developers Beware of CERCLA Ruling

2008-02-13T09:17:00.000-08:00

The United States District Court recently denied the innocent landowner defense to a developer because the developer moved contaminated soil. Lewis Operating Corporation purchased a property in Chino, California. Environmental due diligence was conducted by a reputable firm, and environmental concerns were not noted for the property. The land was purchased for the purposes of developing a mixed use commercial and residential project.

In 2003, during grading, a pile of munitions was uncovered and work was stopped to deal with the problem. It was found that in 1943 a US Army Air Force aircraft crashed at the site effecting about 3,000 square feet of the site. The crash site was to be “cut” soil, and the cut soil was then to be used as fill on another portion of the site. When the munitions were discovered the area was cordoned off immediately and local authorities were contacted. Visible ordnances were removed. Private contractors were then hired to remove the soil to another fill site which contained other fill material. The following month the developer contacted the Army Corps of Engineers to help clean up the crash site. The Corps assessed the developer’s eligibility for the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program and eventually declined to help. The developer then met with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to discus cleanup. The DTSC approved a plan to remediate about 10,000 cubic yards of soil. The DTSC eventually removed all ordnances and explosives in the fill areas. Over 45,000 tons of soil were processed through a soil screening plant. In December 2004 the remediation was completed.

The developer sued the United States Department of the Army to recover about $3.2M in costs to clean up the crash site. The developer argued that the Army should bear all the clean up costs on the basis that the developer was not responsible because they were “innocent landowners” under a provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The only question left for the court was to decide if the developer was an innocent landowner under CERCLA. The court found that the Army did not “solely” cause the “release” of hazardous materials on the property because the developer actively spread contaminated soil from a 3,000 square-foot test site to more than 16 acres of land (fill sites). Thus the developer did not qualify as an innocent landowner.

Who Enforces Environmental Laws in California

2008-01-24T11:18:00.000-08:00

The following is taken directly from the State Water Resources Control Board website, and may serve some value to our clients.

California's environmental laws are enforced by a matrix of state and local agencies, each charged with enforcing the laws governing a specific media such as air, water, hazardous waste, solid waste, and pesticide laws.
AirAir Resources Board (ARB)Air Districts
WaterState Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (including underground tanks)State Regional Water Quality Control Boards Local waste water officials (see listing under county or city)State Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water
Hazardous WasteDepartment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA)
Solid WasteIntegrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)Local Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)
Carcinogens/reproductive ToxinsProp. 65 (OEHHA)
PesticideDepartment of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)County Agricultural Commissioner

Goats Save the Environment!

2007-12-17T15:49:00.000-08:00

In Auburn, Washington 100 goats were set loose to clear a grassy area of several acres near a retention pond for a Supermall. It took the goats three weeks to clear the area for Glimcher Realty Trust. The animals and their herder cost the company $3,000 for the three weeks. Using landscapers, a company spokesperson says that the same project would have cost $40,000. And no chemicals or gas-powered equipment were necessary to run the goats. Apparently goats eat just about anything in front of them. The project was so successful that the goats were hired for a similar project at Sea-Tac International Airport. Saving money while doing their part to save the environment. It is great what a little ingenuity and a hundred goats can do.

California's AB32 and Green House Gas Reduction

2007-12-14T15:08:00.000-08:00

The Terminator is now affectionately known as the Environmental Governor. A lot of what follows was directly copied from other articles, so I do not claim it as my own.

AB32 the “Global Warming Solutions Act” establishes mandates to reduce California statewide greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) back to 1990 levels by 2020, an approximately 30% reduction from forecasted emissions. On January 1, 2008, sectors identified as significant GHG emitters (electricity producers, petroleum refiners, and cement processors) are required to start tracking 2008 emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been put in charge of implementation by January 1, 2012. However, they are also authorized to take earlier action.

AB32 will establish a local market for emissions trading, by setting a baseline and then receiving credit for producing less GHG than the baseline creating an emissions offset. Since carbon “cap and trade” markets are currently voluntary and unregulated, the nature and characteristics of carbon offsets vary significantly between willing buyers and sellers. CARB is preparing to endorse the CCAR’s Forestry Project Protocol for generating voluntary offsets, thereby providing a "seal of approval" for offsets generated using this protocol.

To qualify for greenhouse gas emission offsets, a reduction in GHG emissions must be deemed “real, permanent, measurable, verifiable, and additional”. “Additional” (similar to the concept of "surplus") means that the reduction in emissions reflect a deliberateness of purpose with regard to reducing GHG emissions and . That is, the reduction activity would not have taken place in the absence of offsets. Since energy efficiency is mandated by policy and subsidized by the government, any GHG reductions achieved through energy efficiency in California is unlikely to meet the criteria of “additionality”.

AB32 will have a broad reach within the environmental planning world. The current debate suggests that GHG now should have a significant consideration in the CEQA process. It seems as though many lawsuits will be following.

New Regs Ease UST FUND Acceptance

2007-12-05T16:32:00.000-08:00

There are significant changes in the Permit Waver requirement of the California UST Petroleum Fund application process. Ceres Associates considers these significant changes because they represent the difference for two of our clients of getting on the FUND or not getting on the FUND. Prior to the recent court ruling, if you owned a property that had unknown tanks and contamination was found, you did not have access to the FUND, even though this seems to be contrary to the spirit of the law that created the FUND. However, based upon a recent court decision in Kelsoe v. State Water Resources Control Board, that concept has changed. It is the opinion of the Court of Appeals that a permit waver may be used to excuse permit noncompliance that occurred before January 1, 1990. In addition, under the Kelsoe Decision if noncompliance occurred after January 1, 1990 and certain conditions have been met then a permit waiver will be granted.

In addition to the Kelsoe Decision, there is Assembly Bill (AB) 1437 that becomes effective January 1, 2008. AB1437 states that permit compliance is satisfied if the claimant obtained a UST permit when the claimant became subject to UST permitting requirements, or when local regulators started issuing permits, whichever is later. In addition AB1437 states that if there are unknown tanks on a property, after reasonable due diligence is conducted and the claimant was unaware of the USTs, the claimant can claim permit compliance.

Obviously, we have simplified the two changes here. If you would like to know more, please give us a call.

E-Waste Recycling - The Real Deal

2007-12-01T21:37:00.000-08:00

Well I went to New Mexico, and saw a prototype of the e-waste recycling unit I wrote about a couple of months ago. This unit only consumes about a ton a day, but it works. You put the waste into a grinder which is fed into a machine that uses a technology the firm coined as "catylitic pyrolysis". What comes out is metals that can be separated by specific gravity or can come out as a glob, fibers, gas, and a bit of char. The gas is used to refuel the machine, and the fibers, metals, and char, are sold back into the marketplace. If you want to spend about $5M on a 25 ton per day unit you will make about 50% ROI, according to the firms financial model. If you want to spend $20 on a 150 ton per day unit your ROI will be closer to 100%. The manufacuter is in place, and the company is awaiting orders. I guess that is where Ceres Associates comes in - to go out and tell people about this equipment who might be interested in doing their part to save the environment while making a good deal of money. Truly the best of both worlds.

New Office in Davis

2007-11-06T15:52:00.000-08:00

There are many exciting things happening around the company these days. We are opening a new office in Davis, California. It seems to be a good central location from which to better serve our north-central valley clients. There is quite a bit involved in opening a new office, please bear with any temporary inconveniences. Our main phone number will always be active and client service will be not be impaired in any way. By the end of November we will have a viable presence in Davis. We have also made initial strides at opening an office in Honolulu. We have some good client contacts there and it also looks like a good place from which to serve an ever expanding clientele.

USTs GALORE

2007-10-19T13:09:00.001-07:00

We are in the midst of sending out a mass mailer, because recently we came across some information that said that there are still thousands of contaminated gas station sites out there. After getting some replys from our mailer, we have found a few pretty interesting data. 1) A lot of UST contamination owners are afraid to do anything about their sites because they fear the costs, 2) regulators are so busy some sites go unnoticed for years, even those with significant contamination, and 3) some consultants get the assessment into the monitoring stage and then use it as an annuity, just charging the client for sampling four times a year for years and years and years.
The first thing our company does is help you through the difficulties of getting on the Califorinia cleanup FUND. You pay the first $5000 and the state pays the rest. Then we can wake up the regulators and speed up the process of cleaning up your site. Finally, we will clean up the site as quickly as possible and get you a letter saying that "no further action is necessary". We will take on all of the burden and all of the stress and make it so that you do not have to hear from the regulators again.

Ultimate E-Waste Recycling

2007-10-01T15:44:00.001-07:00

I recently met a gentleman. You know, one of those guys with a PhD from MIT in some obscur science. He is an inventor who gets a lot of government grants to perfect his inventions. He just has a lot of problems getting his inventions to market. So Ceres Associates is going to help him do so. Next month I will go to New Mexico to see one of his machines at work. I am told that he can take any e-waste such as computers, circuit boards, etc. and break them down to the molecular level. The machine then separates out the molecules. The plastics produce a gas that is used to fuel the machine, the fibers from the plastics, and the metals are separated and resold. There is 100 percent recovery. The inventor has financial models that show a very impressive return on investment(considerably more than 100%), if there is enough e-waste to keep the machine occupied. The machine does not create emissions. There are hundreds of companies that would be able to do very well (financially) with such an invention, especially if one throws in the possibility of carbon credits. This machine will not solve the global warming crisis, but it could be one inventor's gift to our children's future, if we can find an interested company.

Securities and Exchange Commission and the Environment

2007-09-26T09:59:00.000-07:00

When all of those scandals hit the fan during the Enron blow-up days, Congress passed something called the Sarbannes-Oxley law, which was substantially telling publicly traded companies that corporate executives would be personally responsible for the accurate reporting of its financial resources. So enter into the mix the cost of company-owned contaminated properties and how to accurately report these properties in corporate financial documents.
Large companies like ConAgra, Safety Kleen, and Ashland Chemical have found themselves in big trouble with the SEC and some have faced criminal charges for their mishandling of financial records concerning their contaminated properties. Since Enron et al, the SEC is now turning its attention to environmental financial disclosures. The SEC has not come out with new initiatives, but corporate executives are now on notice due to the increased civil and criminal actions being brought by the SEC for those who do not comply with environmental reporting requirements.
Ceres Associates has the expertise to help corporations with FIN47 reporting obligations, and with accepting environmental liabilities under fixed price remediation programs. The undisputed knowledge king when it comes to understanding all three: environmental accounting practices, the legal part of environmental accounting practices, and environmental remediation is Gregory Rogers. Mr. Rogers is a CPA and a JD.

TOO MUCH NITROGEN?

2007-08-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

Fossil fuels have gotten the big press whenever global warming is spoken of, but they are not the only culprit. Now it is becoming clear that use of nitrogen based fertilizers also produce greenhouses gases that may be leading to climate change. A United Nations report suggests that in 1860 there was virtually no nitrogen produced by human activity. Last year it was estimated that agriculture, and fossil fuel combustion produced about 125 metric tonnes of nitrogen that has been deposited into the atmosphere. In addition to that there were approximately 113 million tonnes that come from natural sources.

All of this nitrogen in our atmosphere is disruptive to fragile ecosystems, contaminates water supplies, it is not good for general human health, and is apparently a contributor to global warning. That is what experts are saying.

A certain amount of nitrogen is not only good for you, it is essential to life. But when there is too much nitrogen bad things happen. Say for instance all this nitrogen goes into the atmosphere, rain brings it back down to earth, and weeds go “Yippee”, helping them to spread more quickly and take over – the native plants go away and so do the animals that use those native plants to survive.

Lake Tahoe was always known for its crystal clear blue waters. The lake is not so clear anymore, and one of the main causes appears to be an accumulation of nitrogen, which encourages the growth of algae. Then there are the more sensitive plants like fungi and lichen that die out with excess nitrogen. This is bad news for the flora and fauna that have developed symbiosis with the lichen and fungi.

I do not think that I will ever be the kind of guy who says the sky is falling. But if we have sufficient data to conclude that a certain substance that we over use is having a significant negative effect on our environment, then I am the kind of guy who says that we need to find a better more sustainable path.

Orchards & Pesticides: Solvable Problems

2007-07-27T14:38:00.001-07:00

You’d be amazed just what percent of the Bay Area and greater Sacramento Area was formerly developed with orchards. What is particularly worrisome is that during this period of orchard development it was commonplace for farmers to utilize chlorinated pesticides for fruit protection. Not all sites are impaired, but it is important to know as much as you can about your site.

Although many of the compounds formerly used have since been banned, their residual concentrations still reside in the upper layers of the soil profile. And although it is true that these compounds are likely decreasing in concentration over time, due mostly to natural attenuation and chemical processes, it is also true that the concentrations that remain can be truly hazardous to current and future occupants. Though everyone has heard of DDT, there are also dieldrin, aldrin, and a whole host of more toxic compounds that have been used. You can't see this kind of contamination, only sampling of the soil can provide real world data for review.

If a site that was formerly orchards is being redeveloped for residential use, it is important to collect near surface soil samples to assess for the potential of residual pesticide contamination. We have found sites where –even though the site hasn’t been an orchard since the mid-1970s—the concentrations in the near surface soils exceed hazardous waste threshold criteria! The clean up of these compounds, which are primarily chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, arsenic, lead, and mercury, is usually off-hauling of contaminated materials and backfilling with imported soils. This is an easy and effective method of ensuring that future occupants are protected from historic uses. Most of these compounds affect children disproportionately more than their adult counterparts.

Not every site requires remediation, but knowing what is present either prior to purchase of the site, prior to redevelopment of the site, or prior to re-use of the site, is critical. Only on-site sampling and a trained consultant can guide what should be done. In most instances site conditions are OK, and even in these cases the results of sampling bring peace of mind.

Everyone involved in a transaction involving historic orchards has a stake in ensuring that future use of the site occurs alongside a responsibility to protect those future occupants.

Practical Redevelopment

2007-07-14T13:50:00.001-07:00

For many cities redevelopment of downtown or other urban areas is a challenge. Although the challenge seems large, there are practical approaches to starting the redevelopment train, including funding for assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites.

Every city wants to show off their revitalization -- for many it's an imperative aspect to staying competitive in our modern world. Developers who are eager to work with cities many times run into contamination troubles (or a perception of such troubles) and back out. Who can blame them? But it leaves the City in a tight position with few options for moving forward. Redevelopment is costly in and of itself, without the added concerns of environmental contamination.

What many cities do not understand is that there is ample funding for just these types of sites. Although there is no clear definition of a Brownfield, a simple definition is a site, whose development is being impeded by potential or actual contamination. We've all seen these sites throughout our cities -- the old gas stations, the old mills and factories, and even the vacant lot that nobody remembers what it used to be.

The US EPA offers assessment and cleanup grants (usually up to a total of $400,000 per applicant). These dollars are obtained through a proposal process that starts soon (due date is mid October 2007). Skilled environmental consultants can write the proposal (which is limited to 18 pages), and really good consultants understanding the ranking criteria used by the EPA. Many cities in our own area have received these grants, including the City of West Sacramento, Emeryville, Oakland, and many others.

These dollars are a great start to cleaning up sites that have been impacted or may be impacted by hazardous materials or petroleum products. Plus, these grants can be combined with other monies/services available through the US EPA (via the Target Brownfields Assessment program), the DTSC (via the Targeted Site Investigation program), as well as the State Water Board (via the LUFT Fund and the OSCA). It has been reported that nearly half of all Region IX applicants for Brownfield grants are successful.

Every city has environmentally impaired sites that are sitting idly by because the cost to assess and remediate these sites scares off developers and city planners alike. Please take the time to think about how federal and state grants can help your redevelopment plan as well as contribute to an overall environmental protection policy. Someone is going to get these dollars, why shouldn't it be you?

Consulting Culture

2007-07-09T10:44:00.000-07:00

As we try to improve our business, I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the environmental services business from the viewpoint of the client. If any clients of environmental services are out there who want to respond (because after all you know better than I) please do so by emailing me or posting something to this site.

Environmental consulting firms come in all sorts of corporate cultures. But mostly they are spawned from an engineering or earth science firm. It is difficult for these types of firms to be creative. Oh you will see that they consider themselves creative from the verbage on their websites, but reality is different. So here are some things to watch for. Chargeable hours are very important, especially in larger firms. If you have a larger project billed on a monthly basis, you will note that you have hours charged by principals and seniors that you do not remember speaking with or who contributed to your project. Any open project is fair game within the office to meet chargeability quotas.

Chargeability is also important for lower level employees (as a matter of fact most firms require staff-level employees to be at least 90 percent billable). So if you call to find information for your project from someone who is not otherwise busy, you will find a half hour charged for a five minute phone call. The bottom line on this activity is that the client needs to feel comfortable with the honesty and integrity of the consultant. The activities listed here are not necessarily considered by the consultant to be dishonest. They are just a part of their culture. There are firms with fresh and vibrant cultures where you will be treated honestly. Talk to your consultant before you sign any agreement, feel comfortable with the people who are going to do your work before you even ask for a proposal.

More next time.

OSCA: Money for assessment prior to purchase

2007-07-04T20:57:00.001-07:00

The Orphan Site Cleanup Account (OSCA) is a unique funding mechanism for LUST sites that are without financially viable RPs.

In fact, a key provision of the OSCA is that, where the site is otherwise eligible for reimbursement, the applicant need not already own the Property. That’s right, you don’t have to own the Property to get paid for the assessment of the site.

Here’s how that works: First an applicant (be it a developer, investor, or other) finds a LUST site that has not yet been adequately assessed and does not have a financially viable RP. Then, the applicant enters into a purchase agreement for the site, contingent upon the remediation costs being estimated within the cap of the OSCA. Once the agreement is in place, the applicant can get funds from the OSCA to do the assessment work on the site, which will allow the consultant to posit the anticipated remediation costs (with a margin of error). If the costs fall reasonably within the remaining OSCA funding limit, then the purchase moves forward. If not, the applicant walks away.

The beauty is that the applicant isn’t out of pocket for assessment expenses and has the potential to pick up a site that has a depressed price (due to the environmental contamination). The OSCA will pay for the remediation (up to their $1.5 million cap per site for assessment + remediation) once the applicant becomes the owner in fee.

It sounds like a scam, but it’s not. The OSCA represents the State of California, who has an interest in seeing orphan sites cleaned up. Such efforts protect groundwater resources and inevitably lead to economic development (through the eventual redevelopment of the site). In this sense all parties to the transaction win.

Referral Business Building

2007-06-25T11:41:00.000-07:00

The other day Ryan and I gave a short presentation to a group of commercial real estate brokers at TRI Commercial in Sacramento. There were 20 commercial real estate brokers in the room. If you are in the Central Valley of California and need a real estate broker, I would highly recommend this group. They work together as a team, they ask the right questions and they are motivated to meet their client expectations. The presentation went well, and I think that both they and us learned quite a bit about each others’ businesses. I thought it was an interesting presentation because it help me reinforce a recent assessment about how business grow.

No longer can you make a few cold calls and get a contract for a new project. The information age has changed all that. Clients are now well-armed with enough information to make a decision as to if you have the knowledge and capabilities to inform them and help them achieve their goals. In addition to that, clients want their vendors to be a part of the project. Clients want their vendors to be a part of a team that has the common goal of accomplishing the project. I had heard about these concepts in a set of tapes on “Word of Mouth” marketing. My company is just starting to understand these ideas, and trying to break out of that mold of being a stolid engineering consulting firm. If you want to learn more you can go to the word of mouth marketing association website, or go to the guy whose cd’s I found to be fascinating – George Silverman. If you are not familiar, and you have been stuck in the old model of marketing and business development, you will find there is a new way to better serve your clients, and George can point you there. At my company we prefer to use the terminology Referral Business Building, but that is just us.

The CERCLA Loop: Who should be liable?

2007-06-21T15:40:00.000-07:00

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) has a very strict approach to assigning liability: “the liability of an owner or operator or other responsible person under this section shall be the full and total costs of response and damages” 42 USC §9607(c)(2).

An important policy is forwarded by this Congressional action, namely that environmental contamination is a national problem. In so recognizing the enormity of the problem, Congress apparently sought to clean up sites and preserve the environmental quality of this Nation for future generations. Whether for better or worse, that clean up comes at the expense of “owners or operators” whether or not their direct actions contributed to the contamination.

I can appreciate that Congress sought out the polluters who were causing the degradation of the environment, but I wonder if their vague language was intended. Clearly the courts have read “owner or operator” broad, at times including banks, brokers, and other title holders. We must presume that Congress is “ok” with this approach, since they could easily over rule the courts by changing the statute to reflect their true intent.

What should be the respective liability of parties to a contamination plume? What if someone only “owned” the site, but didn’t contribute directly to contamination? CERCLA does have some built in defenses. Does the strict liability actual change practices? How many people actually know that there is a CERCLA defense? These questions are all necessary parts of shaping our national environmental policy toward more responsible business practices and reasonable liability attachments.

A Better Tomorrow

2007-06-18T10:55:00.001-07:00

Whether you believe that the actions of humans on this planet are causing the ice to melt and the seas to rise or not, we probably mostly agree that it would be nice to treat the space in which we live with some respect. It is likely that we all agree that it would be better to use fuels that are renewable to provide us electricity. It would be better to capture chemicals before they contaminate our air and groundwater supplies. It would be better to reduce air pollution so that our citizenry can live longer, more productive lives.
Do not think that you are powerless to do something about creating a better environment in which to live. Every gallon of fuel that you do not use is a step toward a cleaner environment. Every time you reuse a plastic bag or toss a plastic bottle into the recycling bin instead of the garbage is a step toward a cleaner environment. When you use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable batteries, you are headed to a cleaner tomorrow. If you are building a house and install photovoltaic cells to help provide your electricity you are helping to extend the lives of your grandchildren. One small step at a time taken by hundreds of thousands of individuals has a huge impact. So let’s all take one step today, and encourage others to do so. It will make us all a little happier.

Why Banks require a Phase I

2007-06-14T10:59:00.000-07:00

Why do banks force borrowers to get a Phase I ESA? Although the bank may be thinking about the borrower’s potential liability under CERLCA, it’s really all about risk to the lender.

Although banks have been given a way out of CERCLA liability, they are not immune to the potential downfalls of an environmentally impaired site. True, if they follow through with the CERCLA requirement s, the lender won’t be held liable for the actual clean up of the site, but once the site has entered the realm of regulatory oversight, there is little that can be done with the site until clean up has met human and ecological health risk criteria.

A lender is concerned about the very real potential that a defaulting borrower may skip town, leaving a contaminated site behind. These sites are financial drains. Though there are ways to dealing with this issue, many lenders want to avoid the possibility. One way to potentially avoid this – a Phase I ESA.

The Phase I will give the lender a historical view of the Property, and if done correctly will provide an analysis of the potential for historical and current uses of the Property (with a special focus on hazardous materials and wastes) to adversely impact the environmental quality of the Property. The lender can use such a report to determine their potential risk of taking the site back (i.e. just how likely is it that Company X is going to skip town leaving me with their site?) and combine that information with the potential that the use of the site may impact the environment (i.e. just how likely is it that Company X and the three prior occupants used hazardous materials?).

A real situation occurred recently where a lender was loaning on an office building. Without more the lender would have thought all was good to go (thinking that office meant “clean”). However, the Phase I revealed that historically the site was used to operate a dry cleaning facility. The lender chose to further investigate by having Ceres Associates collect soil and groundwater samples. In the end the loan was refused because the site was already contaminated. But for the Phase I, the lender would never have known the potential risk of loaning on the site.

The Phase I provides a critical piece of the lending puzzle, especially when it comes to risk potential associated with individual loans.

The New Environmental Due Diligence

2007-06-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

The world of environmental due diligence has been put in a tizzy by the US EPA. At the end of 2005 the EPA finally put together their guidelines for what constitutes All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI, a term first coined in 1984 in the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act, SARA). So this is now the only guideline to use while conducting a Phase I that will allow the new owner of a property to avoid federal liability under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, 1980). So as a potential property owner this will affect you, and you should be aware of the AAI regulations, because it is unlikely that your bank will let you know. You see banks do not have much liability under CERCLA, so they are not really interested in the new regulations. What they are interested in is whether or not the property has environmental contamination that would lessen the real property value. These are separate issues entirely. Of course, AAI is a little more involved that other levels of environmental due diligence and will cost more. Talk to your local environmental consultant about what is right for you or you can email me at nickpatz@ceresassociates.com or phone me at 707 748-3170.

Composting in Napa

2007-06-01T09:21:00.000-07:00

Recently our company has been introduced to composting and waste water odor problems in the Napa Valley. Grape growing necessitates waste organic material. How you get rid of that material can sometimes be a large concern to your winery neighbors. If you are outside on a nice sunny day overlooking the vineyards of the valley it should be a memorable experience. But if you are in that same situation and the prevalent odor in the air is of sewage then there are some concerns. Composting is a simple practice, and excessive odors have simple solutions. Wastewater issues are sometimes a bit more complex, but once the specific problem is found, the solutions are normally fairly simple to implement also. We have a client which is a very high end winery, and they have a neighbor who composts and has a waste water pond. The neighbor is not well versed in how they take care of their wastes, and the odors flowing into the tasting room and veranda of our client are significant, and so the issue also becomes economic because tastings and onsite sales decrease. So the problem then is not only solving the odor issue, but how to get a neighbor to implement odor control that does not effect his tasting room, because the prevailing wind is in the opposite direction. We are considering how to solve this problem now.

Reinventing Ourselves

2007-05-31T09:56:00.001-07:00

Ceres Associates is going through an interesting time right now, we are in the process of reinventing ourselves. It is a sincere effort to reach out to our client base and provide them what they really need and what they really want. Instead of being that old-school environmental engineering firm, like most of our industry represents, we want to become the Virgin Airlines of our industry, a company that offers substance and fun. We can do most of this on our own, and we expect that it will take some time. If there is anyone with some great ideas on how we can be the company that clients want to hire, we would love to hear them.

Need Funding, try the OSCA

2007-05-23T13:31:00.000-07:00

When a property owner finds out that a underground storage tank (UST) is located on their property, they usually have a mild reaction -- perhaps a cough. But when that same owner is then told that the UST leaked and may costs $100,000s to fix. . . well, they do more than just cough.

Though, in California, the UST Clean-up Fund does provide an incredible amount ($1.5 million) of financial assistance, if the site/owner doesn't meet the Fund's strict guidelines they are DENIED. Here's where the Orphan Site Clean-up Account (OSCA) comes to the rescue. The OSCA (a sub-part to the Fund) is designed to pay for assessment and remediation of sites impacted from petroleum-fuel USTs. The OSCA has the same $1.5 million limit as the Fund, but the strict permitting requirements are foregone.

The key to the OSCA is there can't be financially viable Responsible Parties (RPs) in the title history of the Property. Though it hasn't come to it, the OSCA does provide for priorities of assignment where the property lies within a set distance of sensitive sites, located in a HUD zone, or is a Brownsfield site. Payments from the OSCA are much quicker than the Fund, and all reasonable costs associated with work required by the local regulator are reimbursed (this includes the removal of the problem UST).

The great thing about this funding mechanism is that now property owners with leaking UST issues have financial support to get their sites to closure. The OSCA is a powerful tool for developers and property owners who are looking to redevelop former gas stations, Brownsfield sites, and other infill locations. Don’t shy away from that next property because the Phase I indicates the potential for a UST; do some additional due diligence and perhaps you may find a property that is truly a diamond in the rough.

Click here to apply.

We Need Some Good People

2007-05-18T15:50:00.000-07:00

What is it about this industry that makes it so difficult to find good registered employees. Ceres Associates is poised to take on some substantial growth, but we do not want to take on the growth unless we have the right people to sustain that expansion. Not only that, any new employee would have to be fun to be around. Work hard and have fun that’s what we do. Maybe by putting out this simple blog, someone out there somewhere who fits the bill will say “hey, that’s the company for me,” and send a resume to nickpatz@ceresassociates.com. Professional Geologists and Engineers who want to work in the Los Angeles Area or the San Francisco Bay Area, we are looking for you.

Global Warming - A Thing of the Past

2007-04-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of concerns with global warming these days. The concept of global warming gets very complex. Politics plays a role, and whenever that happens emotions often take over from knowledge and intelligence. I do not claim to be an expert in how and why climates change. My expertise is in reducing harmful chemicals in the air, soil, and water. In the United States alone two million tons of methane emissions are generated annually by our landfills. Of course, there are many other harmful chemicals being emitted from our landfills, but using methane alone, kind of ads a perspective to the problem. Methane, of course, is a significant green house gas designated by experts as being partially responsible for global warming. So there is a big problem with the way we manage our wastes in the United States. The problem is much worse on a global scale. But there are good and reasonable solutions.

One day landfills will be a thing of the past. There are several technologies that will combust debris, and reduce the amount of trash that needs to buried by 90 percent or greater. In the United States we use the oldest method of all and that is called mass burn. However, significant research is being conducted in this country, as well as in places were a lot of landfill space is not available. Emerging technologies include pyrolysis, gasification, and plasma arc to name a few. It is not too important to describe these in detail, but suffice it to say that these are not burning technologies they are transformational. They transform organic material into gas, and inorganic material to a molten glob, with a little bit of char remaining. The char and the inorganic materials can be reused. The gases are separated out. The bad gases are destroyed or filtered, the good gases are used to power boilers to create electricity.

Of course, these new technologies are relatively expensive. But as the concern for global warming becomes greater, and the technological world looks for ways to shield us from a warmer climate, reducing waste by greater than 90 percent and producing electricity from our waste seems to be a pretty good way to proceed. After all, in using these technologies we will not only significantly reduce greenhouse gases resulting from garbage, but we will produce electricity that currently takes non-renewable resources that are said to add to the problem of climate change. We can accomplish this all with garbage. Isn’t that something?