Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Environmental Site Assessments – Phase 3 – The Site Clean-Up

In the last blog we discovered that a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is used to test the soil and groundwater at a property to determine the “location and concentration” of suspected contamination.  If contamination is found and it is over the legal limit, a property owner may elect to clean-up or remediate the site. This clean-up process is call Phase III or Site Remediation.

Site remediation technologies can be divided into 2 categories:
  1. “In Situ” – Latin meaning ‘On Site’
  2. “Ex Situ” – Latin meaning ‘Off Site’
On site “In Situ” treatment methods involve treating the contamination right at the site. While “Ex Situ” methods involve physically moving the contaminated material to an “off site” location for treatment, then backfilling with a clean-fill material.

There are many factors to consider in choosing the best treatment method including: type of contamination and its concentration, soil conditions, time available, and budget. Depending on the situation, the best treatment method may not be the most effective or cost-efficient.

Consider the following example:  You own a commercial property and receive an offer to purchase for $2,000,000 but your site is contaminated.  Using "in situ" Bioremediation (using natural microbes which digest the contaminants) would cost approximately $20,000 but it will take 18-24 months to complete.  But if your sale closes in 90 days you will be forced to remove the contaminated soil using a more expensive “ex situ” method.  While you may remediate the site and complete your sale, the final clean-up cost could be closer to $250,000.

When it comes to dealing with environmental contamination it is better to be pro-active. Remember even if your site is found to be contaminated, you are the client, and the engineering firm is under no legal obligation to report their findings to any government body, unless it is believed that the contamination seriously endangers the safety or welfare of the public.

If you suspect contamination, have it tested.  Don’t ignore it. If it contamination does exists, it is often under the limits. If it happens to be over the limits then at least you have bought yourself time to explore cost-effective options.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Greenhouse Gas Solution? - Listen to Frank Sinatra

With all respects to Frank Sinatra’s family, perhaps Ol’ Blue Eyes was on to something when he recorded his immortal song “Downtown” in 1966.  As we saw in the last blog – 'Want clean air? Move to the City', some urban neighbourhoods in Toronto produce only 10% of the C02 that their suburban cousins emit.

But even if urban neighbourhoods are more environmentally-friendly, from a greenhouse gas perspective, is developing them economically feasible? Also if you do build (assuming there is space) will people actually choose to live there? I believe the answer to both questions is “yes”.
Consider these facts:
  • In Canada alone it is estimated that there are as many as 100,000 Brownfield sites, mainly in urban locations, which could be re-developed for residential use.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that compared to suburbs, re-developed urban neighbourhoods have: 33-57% less vehicle miles travelled; 47-62% less storm water run-off; and have both decreased crime and increased property values.
  • Susan Wachter at Wharton School - University of Pennsylvania found that re-developed vacant lots used for green space increased nearby residential properties values by up to 30%.
  • Other studies in cities such as St.Louis and Boulder show that re-developed urban land can even stabilize rents and values in declining markets. Collectively this helps communities to expand their tax base.
The land is available and the economic benefits can be quantified, but will people really choose to live in the city?

According to a survey reported on by the Wall Street Journal - 88% of Millennials or “Gen Y’s” (those born between 1977 and 1994), want to live in an urban setting instead of the suburbs. That statistic is even more significant when you consider there are now more Gen Y’s than Baby-boomers. In the United States there are 80 million Gen Y’s, and another 9.2 million in Canada.  9.2 million in population represents the Greater Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary areas combined!

Therefore there is a huge demand for urban communities.
While certainly some Gen Y’s will eventually move to the suburbs, many from this huge demographic will choose to not be a "slave-to-the-car", and will create a "new urban renaissance".

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Want cleaner air? Move to the City


Shock was my first reaction to this front page headline from the Toronto Star's - Greater Toronto section (2/10/11), but as it turns out the facts speak for themselves. The article referenced a report called: Cities and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Moving Forward, published in January’s Environment and Urbanization.
The writer’s (Dan Hoornwed, Lead Urban Specialist at the World Bank and University of Toronto masters student, Lorraine Sugar)  analyzed residential greenhouse gas emissions in the Great Toronto Area, and found, amazingly, that some Toronto suburbs produced 10x more CO2 emissions per capita than their downtown cousins. Yes 10 times more CO2! This is NOT a typo.
How could this be? Isn’t the big bad city the problem?
The report cited increase heating and electrical used to manage the bigger houses (not to mention the environmental impact of more raw materials used to build the houses).  In addition Toronto suburbs (read “every North American suburb”) have transportation issues as they have “developed a way of life that is highly automotive dependant”.
The suggested solutions to the problem seemed sparse:  take public transit, retro-fit your home to make it more energy efficient, protect farmland, etc.  No new news here. Don’t get me wrong these are all good ideas but there is a growing belief that only way to curb our C02 problem is if society makes a significant shift away from the suburban “slave-to-car” lifestyle.
The good news is there IS a solution to the problem and, perhaps most importantly, it is doable and there already exists significant support for the idea! 
In my next blog I will detail this idea.  But I will give you a hint – It’s where Frank Sinatra said “we can forget all our troubles and forget all our cares”.

Next Blog: Greenhouse Gas Solution? - Listen to Frank Sinatra