New Office in Davis

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?