By Mary Jo Harrod
In 1962, the city of Middlesboro granted a household garbage
franchise to Roy Shoffner and Sam Mars to operate a landfill in
Happy Hollow, a narrow valley of 14 acres. Though the city made
garbage pickup mandatory, illegal burning and dumping were constant
problems at Happy Hollow.
Bulldozers covered garbage and burned materials, but vegetation
grew until trees were 20 feet tall. By 1974, the two business
partners decided to sell the franchise and garbage trucks back to
the city and close the landfill.
Though it was closed and posed no immediate threat to human
health and the environment, Happy Hollow was still on the state's
list of uncontrolled landfills and considered to be a brownfield.
In 2007, Shoffner & Mars, LLC voluntarily began the appropriate
regulatory landfill closure process.
"There was never a threat to the water supply and no methane was
ever detected," says Sammy Mars, son of one of the original owners
of Happy Hollow. "We contacted Linebach Funkhouser Inc. for
assistance in proceeding with the remediation of the landfill and
bringing the site into compliance for closing. We wanted to protect
the environment and later chose to develop the site."
Phase I consisted of adding 20 more feet of soil cap,
implementing a passive vapor barrier and constructing a landfill
cap. A monitoring well extends to the bedrock in the hollow and is
checked every six months, though it has been problem-free. Phase II
entailed removing 150,000 yards of dirt from a hillside to raise
the property level and create flat areas for business. A communal
asphalt parking lot for the hotels sits on a portion of the
Being a privately held company, Shoffner and Mars, LLC is
ineligible for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency brownfield
cleanup grants. However, the company recognized the potential and
spent its own money for the project. The earth-moving cost alone
for Phases I and II was $1.2 million.
The property had a 60-room Holiday Inn-Express that stayed at
capacity and could not be expanded. But at the project's end in
2010, a second hotel, a 50-room Sleep Inn, opened on the site. The
property is located on the border of Middlesboro's central business
district at the town's main stoplight. Between the two hotels, they
now generate 60 percent of tourist tax revenue for the area.
Middlesboro is in a flood-prone area. Before the project, the
hilly land was valued at $10,000 per acre. After moving dirt to
create level areas higher than the flood zone, the land's value is
$200,000 per acre.
"There were project challenges, such as with the leachate
collection system, which had to be re-engineered," says Charles
Leachman, senior geologist from Linebach Funkhouser. "The state
wanted us to use a specific type of stone, which was difficult to
find, to set around lines to improve drainage. Also, we encountered
waste further down the hill than we anticipated and had to be
careful to keep it from rolling down the hill."
In redevelopment cases such as this, Leachman recommends
bringing a good conceptual project plan to the regulatory agency
and asking for advice in case something has been overlooked.
Working proactively in this manner makes a project go more smoothly
and often prevents delays in the redevelopment process.
Middlesboro is an economic hub for the Tri-State region of
northeast Tennessee, southwestern Virginia and eastern Kentucky.
The new hotel and parking lot fill a need for the area, which is
near the Cumberland Gap Tunnel. With a shortage of hotel rooms
before the Sleep Inn was built, the community's response has been
"For Middlesboro, this project has the Wow! Factor," says Mars.
"The landfill is gone, and a new hotel is on-site. The community
has pride in the results of the project, which is a prime example
of the state working with private industry."
Though no chemicals or hazardous wastes were ever known to have
been accepted at the property, Shoffner & Mars went beyond what
was required by law to protect the environment. The community has
benefited from the revitalization of the area and creation of
Mary Jo Harrod is Public
Information Officer, Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division of
Compliance Assistance, Frankfort, KY.
By Bill Johnston, PG
Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. (LFI) personnel performed permanent
closure, assessment and corrective action activities on (UST)
systems at a former retail petroleum facility located in
Louisville, KY. Three gasoline/diesel USTs were removed from the
subject site in 1997. During the removal of the USTs, a large
amount separate phase product was observed leaching into the common
tank pit area. Product recovery procedures were immediately
initiated to mitigate the contamination concurrent with notifying
the appropriate agencies including the Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection (KDEP), Division of Waste Management,
Emergency Response Section and the State Fire Marshal's
Office. Following the completion of the removal and initial
abatement procedures, several documents including Initial
Abatement, Product Recovery and UST Permanent Closure reports were
filed with the KDEP, DWM, and Underground Storage Tank Branch
(USTB) on our client's behalf. Several assessments were completed
to define the horizontal and vertical extent of the separate phase
and dissolved petroleum contaminant plumes identified in the
shallow groundwater. LFI personnel enrolled our client in the
USTB Petroleum Storage Tank Environmental Assurance Fund (PSTEAF)
in an effort to recover eligible costs for assessment and
A corrective action plan (CAP) was written for the site with the
assistance of AST Environmental (AST) of Midway, Kentucky that
proposed utilizing a "cutting edge" in-situ remediation technology.
The technology developed by Remediation Products, Inc. (RPI) of
Golden, Colorado known as BOS 200® is a Trap & Treat® Bacteria
Concentrate applied with a high velocity/high pressure delivery
system designed and implemented by AST. This combined
product-delivery remediation technology was outlined in the CAP
that was submitted and approved by the USTB.
Prior to implementation of the CAP, subsurface impacts consisted
of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils, accumulation of light
non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) in three monitoring wells and
aqueous phase (dissolved) benzene in groundwater as high as 11
milligrams per liter (mg/L). The impacted area immediately
surrounding the former tank pit, occupied approximately 7,000
square feet of the approximately 3-acre site.
LFI and AST teamed to develop a remedial approach to address the
LNAPL and dissolved phase petroleum hydrocarbon impacts at the
site. Specifically, an injection design was prepared and
implemented to address LNAPL and dissolved phase petroleum
hydrocarbons. The goal was to inject BOS 200® to remediate the site
for removal all the LNAPL and reduce benzene concentration to below
0.005 mg/L in the on-site monitoring wells.
On Friday, August 19, 2011, 20,400 lbs of BOS 200® was delivered
to the subject site. On the morning of August 22, 2011,
AST mobilized personnel and equipment to the site and setup for the
injection effort to begin that day. The injections were
completed in 8 workdays with AST injecting the 20,400 pounds (lbs)
in 150 injection points to approximately 14' below grade surface.
AST prepared BOS 200® slurries and injected it into the subsurface
through probe rods. The slurry is pumped through the probe rods
using a positive displacement diaphragm pump capable of delivering
1,200 pounds per square inch (psi) at 35 gallon per minute (gpm).
The injection pressure varied from 200 to 600 psi. The
pressure injection scheme created extensive "fracturing or soil
lifting" of the soil to create preferential pathways within the
fine grain clay which are filled with BOS 200®. The injection
effort was completed on 8/31/2011.
The post injection monitoring reports from July and October 2012
reveal that the full list of analytes and all constituents of
concern (COCs) were well below the CAP and EPA defined clean-up
goals. Based on these results KY-USTB issued a No Further Action
for the site on December 20, 2012
By Brendan Merk, Senior Hydrogeologist
In February of 2013, as part of LFI's ongoing professional
training and development program, the LFI staff was provided a
technical presentation by Mr. Joseph Ray, a certified Professional
Geologist and published author of many papers dealing with dye
tracing and subsurface flow. A renowned karst specialist, Mr. Ray
provided information on the flow of groundwater below actively
running rivers - water features typically considered natural
barriers to subsurface flow.
Kentucky features one of the most famous karst areas in the
world, and much of the State's manufacturing base overlies it.
Karst environments are well known for topographic features such as
sinking streams, caves, and springs. In areas of well-developed
karst, such as the Mammoth Cave area, subsurface flow is considered
the norm and surface water streams and rivers are rare.
Geologists and engineers are routinely taught that water will
flow downhill to join a river or stream at the surface, even when
that water flows underground. Conventional wisdom is that the river
will act as a natural barrier - the stopping point where
groundwater flow becomes surface water flow. The only rule with
karst though, is that normal rules just don't apply. Failure to
understand and property interpret subsurface flow can lead to
significant errors in determining where contamination may be going,
and how much it's going to cost to clean it up.
Mr. Ray presented compelling evidence that the flow of
groundwater through fractured rock beneath overlying rivers and
streams is more commonplace than has been historically believed.
Pathways of preferential flow make it possible for water to
disappear underground for a distance, only to appear again later as
a spring. These subsurface pathways are not connected to flow at
the surface however, making it possible for the water sink and the
spring to be on opposite sides of the river.
Karst environments with fractured rock flow occur in varying
degress in all the states surrounding Kentucky. Mr. Ray emphasized
that geologic knowledge of such features is important, as is the
ability to apply that information to a given situation. He provided
an example of a city in Kentucky where a municipal water supply at
a spring turned out to be originating from a water sink just
downhill from the city's sewage treatment plant.
Following his presentation, Mr. Ray entertained several
questions from LFI staff. Mr. Ray's presentation is one of several
technical lectures and training sessions in which LFI staff will
participate in 2013. Training and continuing education are a part
of life at LFI, and a cornerstone in producing exceptional work for
Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. (LFI) was recently awarded two
subcontract agreements with Walsh Construction Co. and Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc. to manage environmentally affected
materials that may be encountered during upgrades to Spaghetti
Junction and the new Downtown Crossing over the Ohio River in
Louisville, Kentucky. LFI will serve as the Contaminated Materials
Manager under the subcontracts. Affected soils and other materials
resulting from historical operations of various industrial and
commercial properties within the footprint of the construction must
be properly characterized and managed in accordance with regulatory
LFI will provide project-wide management of affected
materials including development of Site Management Plans, Materials
Management Plans, Corrective Action Plans, Construction Monitoring
Plans, and Environmental Health and Safety Training, as needed, for
By: Russell H. Brooks, P.G.
The federally-mandated, national
"Call Before You Dig" number, 811, was created to help prevent
unintentionally hitting underground utility lines while working on
excavation, drilling, or similar subsurface projects. People often
make risky assumptions regarding marking utility lines due to
concerns about project delays, costs, and experience (or luck) with
other projects in which utilities were not marked. These
assumptions can be life-threatening.
Every excavation/drilling job
requires a call - even small projects like planting trees or
shrubs. Hitting an underground utility line while digging can
seriously harm you or those around you, disrupt service to an
entire neighborhood or industrial park, and potentially result in
significant fines and repair costs.
The 811 system will notify member
utilities; however, in many cases small local municipalities are
not members of the 811 system. Therefore, it is your
responsibility to identify and contact non-member utility
Typical environmental jobs often
include subsurface activities, such as drilling soil boring and
groundwater monitoring wells, and excavating to remove impacted
soils, waste materials and underground storage tanks (USTs).
The 811 call should be made 48 to 72 hours prior to commencing work
on all subsurface operations. Depending on individual state
laws, you must account for holidays and weekends, so do not call on
Friday and expect the utilities to be located on Monday.
An 811 utility locate request will
only mark utilities up to the service meter for the property. It is
the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all utilities
beyond the meter are properly located and marked prior to the start
In cases of large coverage areas,
the utility clearance company has the right to request work area
demarcation prior to marking the utilities. Identifying work
areas on large sites helps to minimize the locator's time on-site,
and also confirms that utilities in work areas have been
Site utilities will be marked with
paint and flags. The following universal color system
indicates what is buried below the surface:
Once the utilities are marked it is
the excavator's/driller's responsibility to avoid damaging the
utilities. Although no specific "hand-dig" zone is outlined
in the Call Before You Dig law; the American Public Workers
Association and several industry-accepted Best Practices recommend
hand-digging 18″ on either side of the utility markings to a depth
of 24". It is recommended that shovel excavation or a similarly
gentle method of excavation take place in the hand-digging zone to
uncover utilities prior to proceeding with more powerful
For more information about the
national 811 system, visit http://www.call811.com
Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. has been awarded two contracts with
the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet-Division of Environmental
Analysis. One is a two year contract for Statewide
Underground Storage Tank/Hazardous Materials Services
(UST/HazMat). This is a work order-based contract with a
value of $2,000,000. Services for this contract include
investigating and remediating UST/HazMat sites on highway
right-of-ways prior to highway construction. Linebach
Funkhouser has been providing these services as a pre-qualified
consultant since 2003.
The second is a two year contract for Statewide Environmental
Investigations and Remediation Services for Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet-owned facilities. This is also a work order-based
contract with a value of $2,000,000. Services for this
contract include Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CECRLA) and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) based site assessments,
evaluations, remedial plans and compliance reviews in accordance
with RCRA, CERCLA, the Clean Water Act and related US EPA
regulations, and Kentucky UST regulations. This contract
covers facilities located in Highway Districts 1-6. Linebach
Funkhouser has been providing these services as a pre-qualified
consultant since 2006.
Linebach Funkhouser is a pre-qualified consultant with the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in the following areas:
Mr. Russell Brooks, manager of these contracts, has worked with
Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. for nearly 10 years. In his current
role, Mr. Brooks leads the government services group assisting
various local, state and federal clients with soil, water, and
waste issues. Mr. Brooks can be reached by calling
H. Brooks, P.G.
Funkhouser had a successful year in 2011 remediating petroleum and
mixed chlorinated/petroleum contaminated groundwater plumes at
several sites across Kentucky. Through the efforts of 4 project
managers, LFI has received, or is soon to receive, "No Further
Action" letters from the Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection, Underground Storage Tank Branch and the Superfund
Branch on a total of eight sites. Six of the sites were the result
of petroleum contamination due to historical operations and one
site had a release of a combination of chlorinated solvents and
petroleum compounds. At six sites, LFI utilized
BOS200® and Trap & Treat® a
product sold by Remediation Products, Inc. (RPI), which is a
specially-formulated blend of activated carbon, sulfate reduction
media, micronutrients, and facultative microbes. The seventh and
eighth site involving chlorinated solvents was remediated using
FMC, Inc's. Klozur®CR, which is a single, formulated
product consisting of high pH - activated Klozure Persulfate and
PermeOx® Plus engineered calcium peroxide. The addition
of the remedial products was through the use of
Geoprobe® borings and high pressure injection as well as
open-hole soil mixing. Based on groundwater sampling activities,
LFI found that BOS200®rapidly
reduced or eliminated the identified BTEX contamination to below
MCLs at 5 of the 6 sites, with the 6th site being
reduced to below its site-specific screening limits based on
sampling approximately 3 to 4 months following injection. Long term
monitoring (1 year after injection) at the sites did not indicate
contamination rebound. LFI conducted long term monitoring (two
years of quarterly sampling)of the Klozur®CR site and it
also did not indicate contaminant rebound. Below is a chart showing
a summary of the sites, area of impact, and material used to
successfully obtain closure.
Sites and Material Applied
Area in square feet
Constituents of Concern
Separate Phase Product Present
BY: Bradley L. Coyle, CHMM
President Barrack Obama may have actually inadvertently saved
jobs recently when he asked EPA's administrator, Lisa Jackson, to
withdraw the agency's draft for more stringent ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). By some estimates, the
new ozone standard may have cost as much as $700 billion in
negative economic impact as well as potentially costing as many as
7 million jobs by the year 2020(1).
It's obvious that no one wants to breathe dirty air but, the
reality is that the ozone standards are already pretty tight.
I'm neither a health nut nor a toxicologist but, it's likely
getting to the point that the cost to bring the NAAQ down is not
likely to have a significant positive effect on human
health. In short, the costs of tightening the standard
would likely outweigh the benefit. This particular NAAQ falls
in to the law of 'Diminishing Returns'.
I've read where the numbers of asthmatics has increased by 70%+
over the past 15 years(2). Odd, isn't it?
We've made HUGE strides to better the air quality through the
addition of various pieces of legislation and stringent permitting
programs over the past 40 years yet these types of air
quality-driven illnesses rise? Sure…some of it is diagnosis
and understanding of the ailments but, will driving an ozone NAAQ
further towards the floor be actually advantageous from a health
standpoint, or will it simply continue to slow economic growth and
reduce the United State's overall economic well-being?
The tip of the iceberg was revealed by allowing the proposed
ozone NAAQ to be shelved. This, in my opinion, was a very
good thing in today's economic times and offered a level of
recognition that many of the regulations in the pipeline or coming
out are BAD for the overall good of Americans.
What has failed to be recognized is the cost of many other
burdensome pieces of air regulation that are still 'in the wild'
and will be law (or may have already become law); these will cost
Americans more in nearly every aspect of their lives. The
boiler MACT, the utility MACT, transport rule… the list goes on and
on in to what has even been called the regulatory 'Train
Again, we all want great air(4). We all want
to be healthy. We all want to live long and prosper (yes, I'm
giving the Vulcan Salute while typing)… but, where's the line and
is there a line? So far, this administration's focus has been
at the edge of overly burdensome, in my opinion. Further
though, it is my opinion that President Obama should be recognized
for shelving this legislation while in the heart of an economic
downturn. Overall though - the bulk of the iceberg is still
below water and poses a SIGNIFICANT threat to how we operate as
Mr. Coyle has worked with Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. for nearly
10 years. In his current role, Mr. Coyle leads the
environmental compliance group assisting various nationwide
clientele with air, water, and waste issues. Mr. Coyle can be
reached by calling 502.895.5009.
By: Bradley Coyle, CHMM
EPA has, yet again, been tasked with a reissuance of a very
controversial rule - the Boiler MACT. The DC Circuit Court
mandated that EPA issue a proposed rule and, as such, they
have. MACT, of course, is an acronym for Maximum Achievable
Control Technology and is designated by utilizing the top
performing 'units' in the country. Normally, EPA will take an
individual unit (boiler, in this case) and assess its
emissions. Quite different on this round though - EPA,
rather, took the top 12% of boilers operating 'in the wild' and
cherry-picked their constituents of concern. Fine,
right? Not this time - they actually took the best performers
on INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS rather than the entire sweep of
chemicals that they are wishing to regulate under this MACT.
In short, if Boiler A had great numbers for mercury emissions but
lousy numbers for particulate matter, they only took the mercury
emissions in to account for promulgation of the rule.
Like it or not, the MACT is in the pipeline and will plop out
the end in due time - in fact, the latest word is as early as the
beginning of next year with the final rule also going in for the
2012 year. Here's who will be snagged by this MACT:
Of course, there are twists and turns within the MACT - for
example, emergency fuels and such but, for the most part, you're in
if you're one of the above.
But, wait a minute - didn't EPA 'stay' the Boiler MACT?
Yep. They did but, ONLY FOR MAJOR SOURCES. The JJJJJJ
MACT (Boilers for minor HAP sources) is still out there, coming
down the pipe, and will require you to conduct an energy audit and
will establish a few additional hoops to jump through depending on
if you're above or below the 10 million BTU threshold.
For Minor Sources only - a reporting deadline is RAPIDLY
approaching and will be upon you before you know it. Simply
put, it's a reporting deadline to declare applicability to the
MINOR SOURCE MACT. The due date to have this to your
regulatory agency (federal, state, local) is September 17,
2011. This means it's time to get on the ball and get your
notification in if it is applicable to your source.
For more information on the Boiler MACTs - or any of the other
130+ MACTs, let us know. We are currently assisting major and
minor sources from metal cutting to surface coating and a variety
of other source categories subject to 40 CFR Part 60 (NSPS) and 63
Mr. Coyle has worked with Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. for
nearly 10 years. In his current role, Mr. Coyle leads the
environmental compliance group assisting various nationwide
clientele with air, water, and waste issues. Mr. Coyle can be
reached by calling 502.895.5009.
By: Kathleen Wissel
It is Monday and you are in the beginning of the weekly routine
of production meetings, operation schedules and to-do lists. Then
surprise… an environmental inspector arrives at your facility! Now
what? The following pointers for dealing with surprise inspections
may be helpful:
Number 1 - Remain calm. Your first reaction might
be to panic, but don't! It is ok to be nervous, but remember that
you can always practice inspections with management or consultants.
(Hint: It's a good idea to conduct internal audits on a
routine basis and to have various members of the sites' team
participate so that they understand what may be expected of them
during a real inspection!)
Number 2 - Ask for Identification or a business
card. This might sound like a no brainer, but if it is a new
inspector you will want to document this for your records. (Most
inspectors will show their State Agency issued badges or will
provide a business card upon arrival)
Number 3 - Identification of lead person.
Communicate to the inspector that a certain person will be the
overall contact during the audit. The key individual
(normally the site's EHS Manager) will be generally responsible for
dealing with the inspector, providing follow-up information, and
filing the necessary internal reports/documentation associated with
the inspection. The office administrator or secretary and others in
the plant front office should be informed of a set procedure to
follow and whom to contact when an inspector arrives. Also, have a
back up person in place because you never know when you might need
Number 4 - Expeditious Review. Most
regulations and guidance will stipulate that 'expeditious review'
of records and documents should be available. This means that
you cannot 'stall' the inspector with gobblygook in the front
lobby. When they show up, it's time to let the rubber meet
the road and get going. If you need to call in an external
resource, it's always a good idea to do that before you head to the
lobby to meet the inspector. Further, explaining to the
inspector that someone else will be assisting, if that's the case,
is a good idea. Kick the inspection off with a 'kick-off'
meeting to establish the who, why, what, and where that the
inspector is expecting to accomplish.
Number 5 - Plant Tour. Plan the plant tour very
carefully! The inspector will probably ask to see equipment in
operation. You are in the "tour guide" so take the most
desirable direct path to the specific equipment.
Number 6 - Show only requested information. Many
large corporations have internal policies to provide only data that
is requested; nothing more. LFI recommends maintaining
different binders for the air, water and waste (or other media
where you may be inspected). This method will allow you to be in
control of the data that the inspector sees and reduces the risk of
potential record NOVs. (HINT: Computer documentation is often
beneficial however, it can be a bombardment of data on an
inspector. Be sure to establish that you're providing the
data that the inspector is seeking to avoid potential
Number 7 - Photographs. The inspector might request
to take digital photographs of equipment, processes or other
related items during the inspection. It is important to know your
company's policy on photography in the plant. If you allow
photography in the facility, request copies of all photographs in
the inspection report (remember though, the inspection report is
publically available so, if sensitive information/data is contained
within the pictures, you may wish for them to be separated and
marked confidential - or disallow pictures all together).
Number 8 - Inspection Documentation. There is
an old saying that everyone has 20/20 hindsight. After (and during)
the inspection, take specific and plentiful notes! Document
important things like the inspector, date, equipment visited, and
records reviewed. Also note how you think you did and areas for
improvement. Taking notes is one way to improve the next time.
Number 9 - Inspection Summary. Often the
inspector will provide a "pink copy" of the inspection notes to
you. If not, you might want to ask the inspector for a verbal
summary of the inspection. Inspectors will usually describe the
good and the improvement areas of your facility. Better yet,
see if he/she will allow you to copy his/her notes on the
Number 10 - Inspector is a Person. Remember,
the inspector is there to do a job and the inspection shouldn't be
viewed as an 'us versus them' death match cage fight. It can
be very challenging at times to work with inspectors, but it is
important to remember that they are a person too! You probably will
be working with this person for months and years to come and the
relationship that you form with them does impact inspection
conditions when they arrive. Relationships are tough to
establish at times, but in the long run, it's our experience that a
strong and open relationship with the site inspector will go a long
way in making an inspection more simplistic and will, overall,
benefit the facility (and your sanity during the inspection).
Copyright � 2010 Linebach Funkhouser, Inc. | 114 Fairfax Avenue Louisville, KY 40207
Web Design by Blackstone Media | admin