The Importance Of Comprehensive Site Investigations And Getting The Right Report

I have been asked to put together a report for the potential construction project for The City Of Liverpool College. The current site being looked at is on Roscoe Street. I will be discussing the consequences which could occur to the buildings in proximity to the site location, and the people who could be affected.

Once everyone who wished to speak had a say, it was time to talk go through the consent calendar. A few of the consents were easily passed with unanimous consent, but one council member, Christopher Armenta, and the vice mayor, Gary Silbiger, had issues with C-5. On the calendar, this agenda item reads as the following, “Approval of Professional Services Agreements with Associated Soils Engineering, Inc., Geo-Environmental, Inc., and Zeiser-Kling Consultants for Geotechnical Engineering and Construction Services.” Councilman Armenta was worried that the council would not have any oversight over the process of awarding geotechnical service agreements to particular firms, and that the amounts given to a particular firm could wind up being an exorbitant amount of money. Vice mayor Silbiger had similar fears.

The Council commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, however they were dismissed by Lloyd J on February16 2005 for want of prosecution [5].

Assessments began to take place in the mid 1980’s, shortly after the site made the National Priorities list in 1983. Relevant standards and guidance levels were used to measure the effect of the Helen Kramer Landfill. The initiation of the EPA’s remedial investigation and feasibility study deemed the nature of the Helen Kramer landfill as an extreme risk to the environment, characterizing the site “by randomly placed, uncompacted, and uncovered refuse, with numerous settlement cracks which vented methane and water vapor” (2). According to the EPA, several million gallons of chemical wastes and over two million cubic yards of solid waste were estimated to have been disposed of at the landfill (2). Studies were performed by the EPA, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, federal natural resource trustees in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to evaluate the onsite and nearby environmental effects due to the landfill. During these studies, contaminants were detected in air, sediments, and aquifers, including high levels of volatile organic compounds and heavy metals in the air and sediments. VOCS and heavy metals expose humans to carcinogens, developmental toxicants, and reproductive toxicants. The assessments also detected numerous contaminants such as (but not limited to),

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

The next Superfund that has greatly influenced the environment of Butler County is the Skinner Landfill. The Landfill is on 85 acres in West Chester (2). The facility was privately owned and was never actually licensed, so it closed in the 1970's (5). The landfill contains about 100 drums of chlorinated organics, and heavy metals. Along with the presence of the drums is the fact that a nearby lagoon was once used as a disposal for these contaminants, and that the site had problems with unauthorized dumping (5). Fortunately, no contaminants have been discovered leaving the site (5). The presence of these

The implementation process of the RCRA has been a complex and controversial issue in the history of the EPA. It provide a complex problem because the EPA often dictates how hazardous wastes is identify and dispose of. For example, according to Sullivan, the author of Environmental Law Handbook recognizes the implementation process, the author writes “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and states have implemented this mandate in extensive regulations issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976(RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.”(Sullivan 147 2014). The EPA policy implementation concepts functioned as the basis for the hazard identification and waste control. This model challenges society to protect the environment by isolating contaminants from the environment while at the same time addressing difficult regulations of hazardous wastes under the RCRA. Since the enactment of the act, it had experienced challenges because the regulation did and received much attention as a result of the hazardous waste classification. The most vital challenge implementing of the RCRA is the policy that rigorously limits on land disposal of hazardous wastes. Moreover, existing hazardous waste regulations do not create robust incentives for disposing of hazardous waste. The author recognized this challenge when he

In reality what the EPA had done was set a site-specific performance standard, based on what qualifications they knew would be compatible with Yucca instead of setting a general performance standard based on safety and science (Ewing & Hippel, 2009). This superficial performance standard was in part responsible for the shut down of Yucca Mountain as its authenticity and scientific accuracy came into question along with the report of falsified documents.

The error was obvious and can be proven as the owner forgot unintentionally to “insert the number of weeks specified by the tender in the appropriate blank.” The contractor asked to be given the opportunity to show to the court and to the owner his estimate.

On April 10, 2006, WCS and Metropolitan entered a standard form agreement to complete certain portions of the construction of a 397-unit apartment complex located in Camp Springs, Maryland. (E. 932, 947-1007). The agreement consisted of multiple contract documents including: AIA Document A131 CMc-2003 and AGC Document 556, Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager (E. 947-63); AIA Document A201 – 1997, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction (E.964-1007) (the “General Conditions”); and AIA Document A121 CMc – 2003, Amendment 1 (collectively, the “AIA Contract”) (E. 932). The AIA Contract named Metropolitan as the owner and WCS as the construction manager. (E. 947). Sections 11.4.5 and 11.4.7 of the General

After Hunt received the environmental audit results, it revealed that there was presence of diesel fuel at the site. CFI, taking the required steps according to the contract,

The environment and the health of the surrounding population go hand in hand. The Environmental Protection Agency takes on this ever so important mission of protecting them both. The mission statement of the EPA states, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Small Business Programs is to support the protection of human health and the environment by advocating and advancing the business, regulatory, and environmental compliance concerns of small and socio-economically disadvantaged businesses, and minority academic institutions (US Enviromental Protection Agency, 2010).” The impact of its mission can be defined clearly as it examines the impact of contamination in the air, the water, and the land on human health.

From landmark remediation projects to local waste management solutions, we leverage knowledge and expertise to share best practices to add value to client organisations and reduce their risk on projects. Our technical experts can assist with standard environmental audits, permits and approvals as well as more specialised requests in areas such as habitat assessment, GIS, risk assessment and information management.

1. Review the case and the three Power Point presentations. Which external environmental issues/considerations should Tad take into account when evaluating the three deals?

It is estimated that e-waste constitutes five percent of municipal solid waste and is expected to continuously rise. E-waste does not breakdown and stockpiling in landfill runs the great risk of toxic leaching into surrounding soils and in the case of an unlined landfill, possibly also into ground water. A steady build up of toxics has potential to cause significant environmental harm. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, despite Australia being one of the most highly regulated areas of environmental control in Australia, there is no actual formal analysis on the activities of waste disposal and illegal polluting (Bricknell 2010). The lack of available statistics regarding illegal dumping can be explained by the tendency to regard the problem as non criminal.