GAEPD: Chemical Remediation for UST Cleanup

Recently we have seen more acceptance from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division when it comes to chemical remediation to remove free product at leaking underground storage tank facilities. There has been mixed feelings about what conditions are right for using chemical remediation and differences begin with the contractors performing the remediation. For example, some contractors indicate chemical remediation can only be effective when free product is less than 0.5 foot thick at a site, while some others indicate that as long as a mobile multi-phase extraction/high vacuum extraction event is performed prior to the injection, injection of chemicals can be very effective with thicknesses as high as 1 foot. What are your thoughts on this?

SCDHEC Transition in Financial System

SCDHEC issued a statement on February 22, 2010 that it will be converting its existing financial system to a new statewide system. The transition will begin on April 16, 2010 and is expected to last up to six weeks. According to the statement, any invoices for environmental work submitted after April 7 will be delayed for processing until the conversion to the new system is complete. How will this affect you?

Safety with Management

I recently went on a group tour of a industrial manufacturing plant. Although the plant boasted that they were "Top in Safety", I was surprised that the plant manager that provided the tour did not wear his hearing protection the entire time. There was heavy machinery that produced noise much above the standard decibels which would require hearing protection. As the tour progressed, I believe his lack of concern affected business people in our group, as many of them did not continually wear their earplugs. Being a plant manager, he sets an example for his employees and those visiting the plant. Have you come across this and if so, why do you think people overlook the need for protection?

UST Soil Cleanup

I recently had a client selling a gas station where the contaminated soil was not removed during a underground storage tank (UST) closure. The potential buyer wanted my client to incur the expense of removing soil. But this is not a requirement for remediation under the Georgia UST regulations and the site has already received a "No Further Action Required". Many developers can go in and redevelop or utilize existing buildings on such property without removing petroleum-contaminated soil. Do you think a seller should have to remediate soil for a buyer?

We are up and running and want your comments

What are some of the current issues in your business that relate to environmental and safety industry in the US?