This article begins by providing an overview of the nature of chemical leaks and spills, as recognized in the engineering literature and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). This article then summarizes available information on the impact and extent of occurrences of leaks and spills due to key sources: accidental spills, mechanical equipment failure, corrosion, and geologic conditions and other natural phenomena. Finally, the article provides a case study of the problem of leaks and spills in the manufactured gas industry that was active from 1850 to 1950. Many of the references presented are dated, which demonstrates how longstanding the issue has been, and how some of today’s conditions at Superfund sites were inadvertent. Modern engineering has considerably improved the means of controlling leaks and spills (e.g., corrosion protection), but leaks and spills still occur and remain significant. Engineering journals continue to advertise improvements and solutions.
Nuclear energy works through nuclear fission, where uranium-235 is split in a nuclear reactor, generating heat. This heat is used to boil water and create steam that powers generators to produce electricity. Key advantages are that it is an energy-dense source that produces reliable base-load power with low greenhouse gas emissions. Disadvantages include nuclear waste, decommissioning costs, and safety risks from meltdowns. Overall, nuclear energy provides society with cheap, efficient electricity while creating jobs through global interest in the technology.
Electricity was first generated by a nuclear reactor in 1951 in the US. The world's first nuclear power plant to power a grid was built in 1954 in the USSR. The first commercial nuclear power station opened in 1956 in England. India's first nuclear power plant, Tarapur Atomic Power Station, opened in 1969 and housed two 160 MW reactors, the first in Asia. Nuclear power currently generates 4,780 MW in India from 20 reactors, with 5 more plants under construction. India plans to significantly expand nuclear power to 64,000 MW by 2032.
This document discusses nuclear energy and its uses. It describes how nuclear fission and fusion work to produce energy. Nuclear fission splits atoms to release energy, which is used in nuclear power plants. Nuclear fusion joins atoms together and occurs in the sun. The basic principle of a nuclear power plant is to produce heat energy through a nuclear fission core, which then converts it to mechanical and electrical energy. The document also lists some advantages like large energy production and lack of air pollution, and disadvantages such as radiation, non-renewability, and accidents.
Nuclear power plants generate electricity through nuclear fission. In a pressurized water reactor (PWR), heat from nuclear fission is used to heat water and produce steam to turn turbines and generate electricity. The steam does not come into contact with radioactive materials. Nuclear power plants produce far more energy from uranium fuel than fossil fuel plants and produce no greenhouse gases, but nuclear waste requires careful storage and disposal.
Nuclear power plants produce electricity through nuclear fission, which is the splitting of uranium atom nuclei. This releases a large amount of energy that is used to heat water and produce steam that spins turbines to generate electricity. While nuclear energy produces few greenhouse gas emissions, it generates radioactive nuclear waste that is difficult to store and remains dangerous for thousands of years. The economics of nuclear power are impacted by its high capital costs to build plants, but also low fuel costs over the plant's lifetime.
Industry analysis g.o.l.d. (global oil leakage detectossuser337fce
The document discusses a new product called G.O.L.D. (Global Oil Leakage Detector) that aims to prevent oil spills by monitoring waters for leaks. It analyzes the product's strengths and opportunities, as well as threats from competitors. A key competitor is Pristine Sea, which uses clays to solidify oil spills. The document recommends marketing strategies for G.O.L.D. to establish itself and expand its online presence against competitors in the oil spill detection market.
Planning to Avoid Failure Storage TanksOrlando Costa
This Publication Tank Storage Magazine page 105 106 from tsm sept-oct-13
Accidents involving storage tanks are unfortunately not as uncommon as people in the industry would like.
This document summarizes the health and environmental risks of unconventional gas extraction based on a study of the industry and government policies. It finds that while the government claims natural gas can be a "bridge" to renewable energy and that regulations will prevent issues, numerous studies have shown higher rates of water and air pollution near gas fields. The industrialization of the countryside with well pads, pipelines, and compressor stations also decreases quality of life. The risks of groundwater contamination, air pollution, and methane leaks are high given the large number of wells and extent of infrastructure involved despite claims by government and industry that best practices will prevent problems.
Nuclear energy works through nuclear fission, where uranium-235 is split in a nuclear reactor, generating heat. This heat is used to boil water and create steam that powers generators to produce electricity. Key advantages are that it is an energy-dense source that produces reliable base-load power with low greenhouse gas emissions. Disadvantages include nuclear waste, decommissioning costs, and safety risks from meltdowns. Overall, nuclear energy provides society with cheap, efficient electricity while creating jobs through global interest in the technology.
Electricity was first generated by a nuclear reactor in 1951 in the US. The world's first nuclear power plant to power a grid was built in 1954 in the USSR. The first commercial nuclear power station opened in 1956 in England. India's first nuclear power plant, Tarapur Atomic Power Station, opened in 1969 and housed two 160 MW reactors, the first in Asia. Nuclear power currently generates 4,780 MW in India from 20 reactors, with 5 more plants under construction. India plans to significantly expand nuclear power to 64,000 MW by 2032.
This document discusses nuclear energy and its uses. It describes how nuclear fission and fusion work to produce energy. Nuclear fission splits atoms to release energy, which is used in nuclear power plants. Nuclear fusion joins atoms together and occurs in the sun. The basic principle of a nuclear power plant is to produce heat energy through a nuclear fission core, which then converts it to mechanical and electrical energy. The document also lists some advantages like large energy production and lack of air pollution, and disadvantages such as radiation, non-renewability, and accidents.
Nuclear power plants generate electricity through nuclear fission. In a pressurized water reactor (PWR), heat from nuclear fission is used to heat water and produce steam to turn turbines and generate electricity. The steam does not come into contact with radioactive materials. Nuclear power plants produce far more energy from uranium fuel than fossil fuel plants and produce no greenhouse gases, but nuclear waste requires careful storage and disposal.
Nuclear power plants produce electricity through nuclear fission, which is the splitting of uranium atom nuclei. This releases a large amount of energy that is used to heat water and produce steam that spins turbines to generate electricity. While nuclear energy produces few greenhouse gas emissions, it generates radioactive nuclear waste that is difficult to store and remains dangerous for thousands of years. The economics of nuclear power are impacted by its high capital costs to build plants, but also low fuel costs over the plant's lifetime.
Industry analysis g.o.l.d. (global oil leakage detectossuser337fce
The document discusses a new product called G.O.L.D. (Global Oil Leakage Detector) that aims to prevent oil spills by monitoring waters for leaks. It analyzes the product's strengths and opportunities, as well as threats from competitors. A key competitor is Pristine Sea, which uses clays to solidify oil spills. The document recommends marketing strategies for G.O.L.D. to establish itself and expand its online presence against competitors in the oil spill detection market.
Planning to Avoid Failure Storage TanksOrlando Costa
This Publication Tank Storage Magazine page 105 106 from tsm sept-oct-13
Accidents involving storage tanks are unfortunately not as uncommon as people in the industry would like.
This document summarizes the health and environmental risks of unconventional gas extraction based on a study of the industry and government policies. It finds that while the government claims natural gas can be a "bridge" to renewable energy and that regulations will prevent issues, numerous studies have shown higher rates of water and air pollution near gas fields. The industrialization of the countryside with well pads, pipelines, and compressor stations also decreases quality of life. The risks of groundwater contamination, air pollution, and methane leaks are high given the large number of wells and extent of infrastructure involved despite claims by government and industry that best practices will prevent problems.
Friends of the UNB Woodlot - 2nd Presentation to the Public Safety and Enviro...friendsoftheunbwoodlot
Friends of the UNB Woodlot made a presentation to the Public Safety and Environment Committee on April 06, 2012 this week.
Shale gas is an issue for Fredericton residents. It is an issue with the parents of children with asthma. It is an issue for a growing number of residents who read the health reports now coming out about the certainty of air pollution from shale gas operations, especially for residents living in a low-lying valley such as Fredericton. And it is an issue with the family physicians of New Brunswick who recently called on the Province for a moratorium.
We now know that the danger of air pollution is equal to the danger of water pollution. Unless you cover our city in a dome, air pollution from shale gas development that impact human health is a certainty. Known carcinogens & asthma-causing smog from shale gas wells, compressor stations, and pipelines will travel downwind over long distances and settle in low-lying valleys such as Fredericton.
Our presentation to City Council on April 10, 2012 stressed at the very beginning that our health concerns were about the shale gas development areas that surround Fredericton. The message to City Council was that with a formal ban using our zoning by-law, Fredericton City Council could push for a similar move by the Province. Fredericton has a Municipal Plan in place, and under the Community Planning Act of New Brunswick, our city has the right to make a zoning by-law or amendment against any high-impact industrial activity such as shale gas operations.
We are disappointed that our present Mayor and Council refused to take a leadership role in asking the Province for a ban or moratorium on shale gas. Our present Mayor and Council are pro-shale gas and our city is surrounded by shale gas exploration areas 10+kilometres in all directions.
In order to impose a ban on shale gas, we first need to reverse the vote already taken by the City of Fredericton. The public has been deliberately misled that the City of Fredericton has not taken a formal stand on shale gas. In fact, Fredericton voted against the shale gas moratorium resolution at the Union of the Municipalities of New Brunswick meeting last September 2011, a meeting attended by Mayor Brad Woodside and Councillor Stephen Chase. This resolution was put forward by the Town of Sackville for the Union to lobby the Province for a moratorium on shale gas but the resolution was narrowly defeated 22-to-18.
Fracking by the numbers: key impact of dirty drilling at the state and nati...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, releases thousands of tons of air pollutants, and produces substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Fracking infrastructure has damaged over 360,000 acres of land across the United States. The report argues that given the scale and severity of these impacts, states should prohibit fracking to protect the environment and public health.
Fracking by the numbers key impact of dirty drilling at the state and natio...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, and releases large amounts of air and global warming pollution. The infrastructure of fracking also damages land by industrializing rural areas and forests. With over 80,000 wells drilled since 2005 across 17 states, the cumulative impacts of fracking on water, air, land, and public health have grown to alarming levels according to the analysis in this report.
1) Pipelines face risks from earthquakes, including damage to welds from ground movement. Proper design criteria are needed to mitigate seismic risks, especially regarding welds.
2) Certain bacteria that eat plastic, like Spingomonas and Pseudomonas, may contribute to corrosion under disbonded polyethylene tape coatings on pipelines. More data is needed to understand this risk and potential mitigation measures.
3) Climate change is expected to increase risks to pipelines from more frequent and intense heat waves and rainfall. Proper consideration of these changes is important for safety.
Hydraulic fracturing has become a core controversy over the last decade. It involves injecting water, chemicals and sand underground at high pressure to extract oil and gas from shale rock thousands of feet below the surface. While it has significantly increased US oil and gas production, concerns about potential water pollution and large water usage have been raised. New wastewater treatment methods are helping to address these issues and allow reuse of fracking water. Overall, hydraulic fracturing has had significant economic benefits for the US through job creation and reducing energy costs, though the long term environmental impacts require further study.
OV I III 1111 I, n·n J ipcs, fIIn), ! fin d in this .docxgerardkortney
OV 'I' III ' 1111 'I', n
·n J ipcs, fI
In), ! fin d in this !lIntiOIl ,I llil I
Jday
ate the maximum all wahlc II 1" 1'1"
1head, anticipat d I a hate il1l)1"I'I"
t' of the drainage mal rie Is. '1'111'I"' I
~ parameters constant, th los'l 11'111"
:tion cost), the lower th head will III
ower hydraulic driving for ' Illllllli'll II
~in the liner is likewis r !un'll
a pipes in a leachate coli I III,
terial and the following prop IliI
,tive design a" stormwater frolll
leachate collection system.
-s) = 8.2 in = 0.00024 cm/s
Il/S
15.2 cm
q)1/2]
J +_- K
~
o 02)( )1/2] = 1~ '/I I. (0.02)2 + 0.00024
024 0.01
eonets] have been introduced to 1111 II I
:stems over such natural materials .11 ~ II
~s superimposed over each other, P'" I
:y (or transmissivity). If a geonci I' II
he spacing between the collection I'll"
2/day
umm
Comments
BOD/COD
Best used on "young" leachate
Flexible, shock resistant, proven, minimum
SRTincreases with increasing organic
strength, > 90% BOD removal possible
Good application to small flows, > 90%
BOD removal possible
Aerobic polishing necessary to achieve
high-quality effluent
> 95% COD removal, > 99% BOD removal
BOD/COD
Ic BOD/COD
BOD/COD
ul tion/precipitation Heavy metals
Useful as polishing step or for treatment
of "old" leachate
High removal of Fe. Zn; moderate removal of
Cr, Cu. or Mn; little removal of Cd, Pb, or Ni
Raw leachate treatment requires high chemical
dosages, better used as polishing step
10-70% COD removal, slight metal removal
30-70% COD removal after biological
or chemical treatment
90-96% TDS removal
It I leal oxidation COD
II It xehange
II rption
COD
BOD/COD
Total dissolved
solids (TOSs)
I V osmosis
11111r: Reinhart, D. R, and C. J. Grosh. 1997. "Analysis of Florida MSW Landfill Leachate Quality Data." Report to the
, I ,It /11 Center for Solid and, Hazardous Waste Management (March).
hate Treatment and Disposal
III wet areas, leachate treatment. use, and disposal represents one of the major
I PIlI s of landfill operations-not only during the active life of the landfill but
I I r a significant period of time after closure. Due to the cost implications, con-
"II'I'tlble attention must be given to selecting the most environmentally responsible,
I II ! -Ifective alternative for leachate treatment and disposal. The optimal treatmentI"1111 n may change over time as new technologies are developed, new regulations
III promulgated, and/or leachate quality varies as a function oflandfill age.
Leachate-treatment needs depend upon the final disposition of the leachate.
1111111 disposal of leachate may be accomplished through co-disposal at a wastewa-
ItI II' atment plant or through direct discharge, both of which could be preceded
II~' in-site treatment. Leachate treatment is often difficult because of high organic
111'1\ th, irregular production rates and composition, variation in biodegradabil-
II I And low phosphorous content (if biological treatment is considered). Several
uuh rs have discu.
This document summarizes a webinar on hydraulic fracking and insurance. It begins with introductions and an agenda. It then provides background on fracking, including the process, risks to water, air, and land. It discusses stakeholders, industry collaboration efforts, and insurance implications. Key insurance issues include potential claims from homeowners, energy companies, workers and more related to water contamination, earthquakes, air pollution and other risks. The document examines insurance precedents and guidelines related to fracking coverage.
This document discusses hydraulic fracturing and proposes potential economic solutions to address its environmental and social costs. It summarizes that while hydraulic fracturing is touted as an economic necessity, it poses risks to groundwater and emissions. It lacks oversight and does not account for all costs. The document proposes repealing the 2005 law exempting fracking from Clean Water Act oversight, implementing performance standards to limit water impacts, and requiring performance bonds to cover cleanup costs from spills. Passing the proposed 2012 FRAC Act could bring fracking under a single federal authority to oversee risks.
An Investigation Into the Root Cause of a Spill From Procuring and Handling o...Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
An intermediate bulk container (IBC) was punctured during
its handling, releasing a refined oil product onto land
at a large construction site in an environmentally sensitive region of Australia. Understanding and controlling the risks from fuel, oil, and chemical spills on the current project was of critical importance, as part of the project’s overall approval,
and ongoing compliance was dependent upon the project’s commitment to minimize all chemical and petroleum hydrocarbon spills everywhere on the site. The telehandler or forklift did not pierce the plastic of the IBC directly, as was
expected to be the case; rather, one of the tines had caught on the underside of the metal base plate (pallet), despite numerous controls being in place at the time of spill, revealing a previously unreported mechanism for a fluid spill from the
handling of petroleum hydrocarbons and related chemicals.
The investigation
team used a
root cause analysis
(RCA) technique,
based on the fishbone
or Ishikawa
diagram, which was undertaken in a thorough
manner with 12 expert contributors from the
project to identify the underlying cause: an inadequate
inspection process. Applying the safety
controls hierarchy to close out the incident,
given that IBCs could not be eliminated from
the project, and two engineering solutions were
put in place to prevent spills from occurring
from piercing by telehandler tines. Administrative
controls (i.e., those least effective) applied
included the introduction of quality assurance
checks for the verification of IBC condition at
various stages throughout the chain of custody.
This document analyzes hydrocarbon releases from offshore platforms between 2001-2008 using two HSE databases. The key findings are:
- The total annual number of releases decreased over the period mainly due to fewer significant releases, while major releases remained constant.
- Gas releases were most common, followed by oil, non-process, 2-phase, and condensate. Older platforms over 20 years experienced the most releases.
- Gas compression systems had the most releases, followed by export and utilities systems. Piping was the most common equipment type affected, followed by instruments and flanges. Mechanical failure was the most frequent equipment cause.
The document provides further analysis of release trends by year, platform
Fracking Deemed to Have Extensive Negative ImpactsAnthony Zambella
The document discusses the negative environmental and health impacts of fracking. It describes how fracking methods have led to extensive environmental pollution due to their reckless extraction processes and loose regulations. Specifically, it details how fracking requires immense amounts of water and poses risks like chemical spills that contaminate drinking supplies. It also explains how the fracking process involves powerful explosives that can cause seismic activity and how the leftover fracking fluid is often improperly disposed of, polluting land, air and water. Overall the document argues that tighter regulations of fracking are needed to mitigate its harmful effects on the environment and human health.
Excess and Surplus Lines Law: A 3-State Sample of a Complete State-by-State C...NationalUnderwriter
Welcome to the 2015 Excess and Surplus Lines Law: A State-by-State Compendium!
This is a 3-state sample of the FREE complete, 186-page state-by-state compendium.
This state-by-state compendium, culled from FC&S Legal’s Eye on the Experts column, is taken from the 2015 Excess and Surplus Lines Laws in the United States Manual, contributed by John P. Dearie, Jr., John N. Emmanuel, Robert A. Romano, and Paige D. Waters, attorneys at Locke Lord LLP, which reflects all of the pertinent changes in the surplus lines laws and regulations of the 50 states and U.S. territories including a special section on the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (“NRRA”) and the steps surplus lines carriers and brokers should be
taking now to ensure compliance with this groundbreaking legislation.
Easy to use and highly informative, this State-by-State Compendium will be your go-to resource for Excess and Surplus Lines Law around the nation.
Get your complete--and complimentary--compendium today: https://fs8.formsite.com/sbmedia/form1661/index.html
How to Successfully Navigate the Latest Changes to the Affordable Care ActNationalUnderwriter
From ALM's National Underwriter comes a timely and necessary ACA presentation covering:
Employer Mandate Penalties
• Reporting Requirements
• Small Business Health Options (SHOP) Changes
• Cadillac Tax Delay
• Delay of Menu Labeling Rule
• Other Affordable Care Act Changes
• Changes to IRS Forms
• Statistics
Finding in Favor of Insurer, Jury Rejects Homeowners¹ Bid for $600,000 for Wa...NationalUnderwriter
From the NEW Verdicts & Settlements section of FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center: Finding in Favor of Insurer, Jury Rejects Homeowners¹ Bid for $600,000 for Water Damage to Their Home
A Florida jury has rejected a couple’s claim that they were entitled to $600,000 from their homeowner’s insurance company for water damage to their residence, finding that the damage claimed by the couple had not been caused by water flowing from a water spout that had been left on overnight.
Facts & Allegations
Andres and Doris Cabo alleged that on January 11, 2011, their residence in Miami-Dade County sustained property damage as a result of their daughter leaving the kitchen faucet’s filtered water spout on overnight. The couple filed a claim with their insurance carrier, Security First Insurance, for water damage to their home.
The EU Solvency II Regime for Insurers: An Update on ImplementationNationalUnderwriter
The document summarizes recent regulatory developments related to the implementation of Solvency II in the UK and EU. It discusses the publication of new rules and guidance by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) on Solvency II requirements. It also outlines new EU regulations setting approval processes for internal models and special purpose vehicles. Finally, it mentions UK regulations coming into force on January 1, 2016 to enable firms to apply for Solvency II requirements verification and approvals in advance.
CFTC Grants No Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...NationalUnderwriter
CFTC Grants No Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Certain Insurance-Linked Securitization Vehicles by Daphne G. Frydman, Brian Barrett, and Raymond A. Ramirez
Toward the end of 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) issued two letters affecting insurance-linked securitization vehicles: CFTC Letter No. 14-145[1] and CFTC Letter No. 14-152.[2]
Both CFTC Letters 14-152 and 14-145, which are summarized below, afford relief from certain Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) compliance obligations. Although Letter 14-145 preceded Letter 14-152, the summary begins with Letter 14-152 because Letter 14-145 is a no-action letter that was issued to a specific (and anonymous) market participant and cannot be relied on by other market participants. In contrast, Letter 14-152 was addressed to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) and affords industry-wide relief from CPO registration to certain entities that engage in insurance-linked securities transactions.
Arbitration in Insurance Coverage Disputes: Pluses and MinusesNationalUnderwriter
The document analyzes the perceived advantages and disadvantages of arbitration in insurance coverage disputes. Some key advantages of arbitration include finality due to limited appeals, enforceability of decisions internationally, flexibility in procedures, and neutrality of venue. However, arbitration can also limit legal protections for the weaker party, decrease precedent from favorable rulings, and eliminate principles such as construing ambiguity against the insurer. While arbitration may be faster and cheaper, these benefits are limited in complex cases. Policyholders should consider negotiating arbitration provisions or avoiding policies with mandatory arbitration clauses.
Supreme Court of Texas Marries Contractual Limitations to Insurance PoliciesNationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of Texas Marries Contractual Limitations to Insurance Policies by Tom Stilwell, John English, Justin T. Scott, and J. Sean Jain
In a case that has been closely watched by the oil and gas industry and its insurers, the Supreme Court of Texas recently issued its opinion in In re Deepwater Horizon, and settled the debate concerning whether a company’s insurance policies stood alone or were married to and dependent upon an insured’s limited obligation in a separate contract to insure and indemnify a third party. Specifically, the court found that Transocean’s $750 million primary and excess insurance policies did not offer unrestricted coverage to BP as an additional insured, but instead incorporated and were bound by the
limitations placed on Transocean’s liability under the parties’ drilling contract (the “Drilling Contract”).
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Pa...NationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Party Bad Faith; Acknowledges Relevance of Actual Investigation by Frederic J. Giordano and Robert F. Pawlowski
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently issued an important pair of decisions for policyholders with bad faith claims against their first-party insurance companies in Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group[1] and Wadeer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company.[2] In Badiali and Wadeer, the court reiterated the narrow “fairly debatable” standard as the threshold for bad faith claims in New Jersey. But, the court also opened the door to modify this standard in the Badiali decision by recognizing the relevance of the actual claims handling in a particular case.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Rig...NationalUnderwriter
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Right to Recover Punitive Damages Arising from Insurer¹s Bad Faith by Sara N. Brown and Roberta D. Anderson
In an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wolfe[1] that a policyholder may assign statutory bad faith claims under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, Section 8371,[2] to a third party claimant.
Importantly, Wolfe resolves the conflict among Pennsylvania and federal decisions regarding the assignability of the right to recover statutory bad faith damages, and allows assignees to seek punitive damages under the statute against an insurer who acts in bad faith.
New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to In...NationalUnderwriter
New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to Insurers by Eric R. Dinallo, Jeremy Feigelson, David A. O’Neil, Jim Pastore, and Jordan R. Friedland
The New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) recently announced a major expansion of its cybersecurity efforts: DFS will require insurers to respond to a special “comprehensive risk assessment” on cybersecurity, with those assessments to be followed by an enhanced focus on cybersecurity as part of DFS’s regular examinations of insurers. DFS’s announcement expands to insurance the increasingly rigorous approach it has recently applied to banks in the area of cyber security. More importantly, it offers critical guidance to all industries about what regulators will consider adequate precautions and preparation in this area.
Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Inju...NationalUnderwriter
Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Injury and Property Damage Coverages by Michael S. Levine and Matthew T. McLellan
More Related Content
Similar to Chemical Leaks and Spills (From FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center)
Friends of the UNB Woodlot - 2nd Presentation to the Public Safety and Enviro...friendsoftheunbwoodlot
Friends of the UNB Woodlot made a presentation to the Public Safety and Environment Committee on April 06, 2012 this week.
Shale gas is an issue for Fredericton residents. It is an issue with the parents of children with asthma. It is an issue for a growing number of residents who read the health reports now coming out about the certainty of air pollution from shale gas operations, especially for residents living in a low-lying valley such as Fredericton. And it is an issue with the family physicians of New Brunswick who recently called on the Province for a moratorium.
We now know that the danger of air pollution is equal to the danger of water pollution. Unless you cover our city in a dome, air pollution from shale gas development that impact human health is a certainty. Known carcinogens & asthma-causing smog from shale gas wells, compressor stations, and pipelines will travel downwind over long distances and settle in low-lying valleys such as Fredericton.
Our presentation to City Council on April 10, 2012 stressed at the very beginning that our health concerns were about the shale gas development areas that surround Fredericton. The message to City Council was that with a formal ban using our zoning by-law, Fredericton City Council could push for a similar move by the Province. Fredericton has a Municipal Plan in place, and under the Community Planning Act of New Brunswick, our city has the right to make a zoning by-law or amendment against any high-impact industrial activity such as shale gas operations.
We are disappointed that our present Mayor and Council refused to take a leadership role in asking the Province for a ban or moratorium on shale gas. Our present Mayor and Council are pro-shale gas and our city is surrounded by shale gas exploration areas 10+kilometres in all directions.
In order to impose a ban on shale gas, we first need to reverse the vote already taken by the City of Fredericton. The public has been deliberately misled that the City of Fredericton has not taken a formal stand on shale gas. In fact, Fredericton voted against the shale gas moratorium resolution at the Union of the Municipalities of New Brunswick meeting last September 2011, a meeting attended by Mayor Brad Woodside and Councillor Stephen Chase. This resolution was put forward by the Town of Sackville for the Union to lobby the Province for a moratorium on shale gas but the resolution was narrowly defeated 22-to-18.
Fracking by the numbers: key impact of dirty drilling at the state and nati...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, releases thousands of tons of air pollutants, and produces substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Fracking infrastructure has damaged over 360,000 acres of land across the United States. The report argues that given the scale and severity of these impacts, states should prohibit fracking to protect the environment and public health.
Fracking by the numbers key impact of dirty drilling at the state and natio...Dr Lendy Spires
Fracking poses significant threats to the environment and public health according to this report. It produces enormous volumes of toxic wastewater containing cancer-causing and radioactive materials, uses huge quantities of water, and releases large amounts of air and global warming pollution. The infrastructure of fracking also damages land by industrializing rural areas and forests. With over 80,000 wells drilled since 2005 across 17 states, the cumulative impacts of fracking on water, air, land, and public health have grown to alarming levels according to the analysis in this report.
1) Pipelines face risks from earthquakes, including damage to welds from ground movement. Proper design criteria are needed to mitigate seismic risks, especially regarding welds.
2) Certain bacteria that eat plastic, like Spingomonas and Pseudomonas, may contribute to corrosion under disbonded polyethylene tape coatings on pipelines. More data is needed to understand this risk and potential mitigation measures.
3) Climate change is expected to increase risks to pipelines from more frequent and intense heat waves and rainfall. Proper consideration of these changes is important for safety.
Hydraulic fracturing has become a core controversy over the last decade. It involves injecting water, chemicals and sand underground at high pressure to extract oil and gas from shale rock thousands of feet below the surface. While it has significantly increased US oil and gas production, concerns about potential water pollution and large water usage have been raised. New wastewater treatment methods are helping to address these issues and allow reuse of fracking water. Overall, hydraulic fracturing has had significant economic benefits for the US through job creation and reducing energy costs, though the long term environmental impacts require further study.
OV I III 1111 I, n·n J ipcs, fIIn), ! fin d in this .docxgerardkortney
OV 'I' III ' 1111 'I', n
·n J ipcs, fI
In), ! fin d in this !lIntiOIl ,I llil I
Jday
ate the maximum all wahlc II 1" 1'1"
1head, anticipat d I a hate il1l)1"I'I"
t' of the drainage mal rie Is. '1'111'I"' I
~ parameters constant, th los'l 11'111"
:tion cost), the lower th head will III
ower hydraulic driving for ' Illllllli'll II
~in the liner is likewis r !un'll
a pipes in a leachate coli I III,
terial and the following prop IliI
,tive design a" stormwater frolll
leachate collection system.
-s) = 8.2 in = 0.00024 cm/s
Il/S
15.2 cm
q)1/2]
J +_- K
~
o 02)( )1/2] = 1~ '/I I. (0.02)2 + 0.00024
024 0.01
eonets] have been introduced to 1111 II I
:stems over such natural materials .11 ~ II
~s superimposed over each other, P'" I
:y (or transmissivity). If a geonci I' II
he spacing between the collection I'll"
2/day
umm
Comments
BOD/COD
Best used on "young" leachate
Flexible, shock resistant, proven, minimum
SRTincreases with increasing organic
strength, > 90% BOD removal possible
Good application to small flows, > 90%
BOD removal possible
Aerobic polishing necessary to achieve
high-quality effluent
> 95% COD removal, > 99% BOD removal
BOD/COD
Ic BOD/COD
BOD/COD
ul tion/precipitation Heavy metals
Useful as polishing step or for treatment
of "old" leachate
High removal of Fe. Zn; moderate removal of
Cr, Cu. or Mn; little removal of Cd, Pb, or Ni
Raw leachate treatment requires high chemical
dosages, better used as polishing step
10-70% COD removal, slight metal removal
30-70% COD removal after biological
or chemical treatment
90-96% TDS removal
It I leal oxidation COD
II It xehange
II rption
COD
BOD/COD
Total dissolved
solids (TOSs)
I V osmosis
11111r: Reinhart, D. R, and C. J. Grosh. 1997. "Analysis of Florida MSW Landfill Leachate Quality Data." Report to the
, I ,It /11 Center for Solid and, Hazardous Waste Management (March).
hate Treatment and Disposal
III wet areas, leachate treatment. use, and disposal represents one of the major
I PIlI s of landfill operations-not only during the active life of the landfill but
I I r a significant period of time after closure. Due to the cost implications, con-
"II'I'tlble attention must be given to selecting the most environmentally responsible,
I II ! -Ifective alternative for leachate treatment and disposal. The optimal treatmentI"1111 n may change over time as new technologies are developed, new regulations
III promulgated, and/or leachate quality varies as a function oflandfill age.
Leachate-treatment needs depend upon the final disposition of the leachate.
1111111 disposal of leachate may be accomplished through co-disposal at a wastewa-
ItI II' atment plant or through direct discharge, both of which could be preceded
II~' in-site treatment. Leachate treatment is often difficult because of high organic
111'1\ th, irregular production rates and composition, variation in biodegradabil-
II I And low phosphorous content (if biological treatment is considered). Several
uuh rs have discu.
This document summarizes a webinar on hydraulic fracking and insurance. It begins with introductions and an agenda. It then provides background on fracking, including the process, risks to water, air, and land. It discusses stakeholders, industry collaboration efforts, and insurance implications. Key insurance issues include potential claims from homeowners, energy companies, workers and more related to water contamination, earthquakes, air pollution and other risks. The document examines insurance precedents and guidelines related to fracking coverage.
This document discusses hydraulic fracturing and proposes potential economic solutions to address its environmental and social costs. It summarizes that while hydraulic fracturing is touted as an economic necessity, it poses risks to groundwater and emissions. It lacks oversight and does not account for all costs. The document proposes repealing the 2005 law exempting fracking from Clean Water Act oversight, implementing performance standards to limit water impacts, and requiring performance bonds to cover cleanup costs from spills. Passing the proposed 2012 FRAC Act could bring fracking under a single federal authority to oversee risks.
An Investigation Into the Root Cause of a Spill From Procuring and Handling o...Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
An intermediate bulk container (IBC) was punctured during
its handling, releasing a refined oil product onto land
at a large construction site in an environmentally sensitive region of Australia. Understanding and controlling the risks from fuel, oil, and chemical spills on the current project was of critical importance, as part of the project’s overall approval,
and ongoing compliance was dependent upon the project’s commitment to minimize all chemical and petroleum hydrocarbon spills everywhere on the site. The telehandler or forklift did not pierce the plastic of the IBC directly, as was
expected to be the case; rather, one of the tines had caught on the underside of the metal base plate (pallet), despite numerous controls being in place at the time of spill, revealing a previously unreported mechanism for a fluid spill from the
handling of petroleum hydrocarbons and related chemicals.
The investigation
team used a
root cause analysis
(RCA) technique,
based on the fishbone
or Ishikawa
diagram, which was undertaken in a thorough
manner with 12 expert contributors from the
project to identify the underlying cause: an inadequate
inspection process. Applying the safety
controls hierarchy to close out the incident,
given that IBCs could not be eliminated from
the project, and two engineering solutions were
put in place to prevent spills from occurring
from piercing by telehandler tines. Administrative
controls (i.e., those least effective) applied
included the introduction of quality assurance
checks for the verification of IBC condition at
various stages throughout the chain of custody.
This document analyzes hydrocarbon releases from offshore platforms between 2001-2008 using two HSE databases. The key findings are:
- The total annual number of releases decreased over the period mainly due to fewer significant releases, while major releases remained constant.
- Gas releases were most common, followed by oil, non-process, 2-phase, and condensate. Older platforms over 20 years experienced the most releases.
- Gas compression systems had the most releases, followed by export and utilities systems. Piping was the most common equipment type affected, followed by instruments and flanges. Mechanical failure was the most frequent equipment cause.
The document provides further analysis of release trends by year, platform
Fracking Deemed to Have Extensive Negative ImpactsAnthony Zambella
The document discusses the negative environmental and health impacts of fracking. It describes how fracking methods have led to extensive environmental pollution due to their reckless extraction processes and loose regulations. Specifically, it details how fracking requires immense amounts of water and poses risks like chemical spills that contaminate drinking supplies. It also explains how the fracking process involves powerful explosives that can cause seismic activity and how the leftover fracking fluid is often improperly disposed of, polluting land, air and water. Overall the document argues that tighter regulations of fracking are needed to mitigate its harmful effects on the environment and human health.
Similar to Chemical Leaks and Spills (From FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center) (11)
Excess and Surplus Lines Law: A 3-State Sample of a Complete State-by-State C...NationalUnderwriter
Welcome to the 2015 Excess and Surplus Lines Law: A State-by-State Compendium!
This is a 3-state sample of the FREE complete, 186-page state-by-state compendium.
This state-by-state compendium, culled from FC&S Legal’s Eye on the Experts column, is taken from the 2015 Excess and Surplus Lines Laws in the United States Manual, contributed by John P. Dearie, Jr., John N. Emmanuel, Robert A. Romano, and Paige D. Waters, attorneys at Locke Lord LLP, which reflects all of the pertinent changes in the surplus lines laws and regulations of the 50 states and U.S. territories including a special section on the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (“NRRA”) and the steps surplus lines carriers and brokers should be
taking now to ensure compliance with this groundbreaking legislation.
Easy to use and highly informative, this State-by-State Compendium will be your go-to resource for Excess and Surplus Lines Law around the nation.
Get your complete--and complimentary--compendium today: https://fs8.formsite.com/sbmedia/form1661/index.html
How to Successfully Navigate the Latest Changes to the Affordable Care ActNationalUnderwriter
From ALM's National Underwriter comes a timely and necessary ACA presentation covering:
Employer Mandate Penalties
• Reporting Requirements
• Small Business Health Options (SHOP) Changes
• Cadillac Tax Delay
• Delay of Menu Labeling Rule
• Other Affordable Care Act Changes
• Changes to IRS Forms
• Statistics
Finding in Favor of Insurer, Jury Rejects Homeowners¹ Bid for $600,000 for Wa...NationalUnderwriter
From the NEW Verdicts & Settlements section of FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center: Finding in Favor of Insurer, Jury Rejects Homeowners¹ Bid for $600,000 for Water Damage to Their Home
A Florida jury has rejected a couple’s claim that they were entitled to $600,000 from their homeowner’s insurance company for water damage to their residence, finding that the damage claimed by the couple had not been caused by water flowing from a water spout that had been left on overnight.
Facts & Allegations
Andres and Doris Cabo alleged that on January 11, 2011, their residence in Miami-Dade County sustained property damage as a result of their daughter leaving the kitchen faucet’s filtered water spout on overnight. The couple filed a claim with their insurance carrier, Security First Insurance, for water damage to their home.
The EU Solvency II Regime for Insurers: An Update on ImplementationNationalUnderwriter
The document summarizes recent regulatory developments related to the implementation of Solvency II in the UK and EU. It discusses the publication of new rules and guidance by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) on Solvency II requirements. It also outlines new EU regulations setting approval processes for internal models and special purpose vehicles. Finally, it mentions UK regulations coming into force on January 1, 2016 to enable firms to apply for Solvency II requirements verification and approvals in advance.
CFTC Grants No Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...NationalUnderwriter
CFTC Grants No Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Certain Insurance-Linked Securitization Vehicles by Daphne G. Frydman, Brian Barrett, and Raymond A. Ramirez
Toward the end of 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) issued two letters affecting insurance-linked securitization vehicles: CFTC Letter No. 14-145[1] and CFTC Letter No. 14-152.[2]
Both CFTC Letters 14-152 and 14-145, which are summarized below, afford relief from certain Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) compliance obligations. Although Letter 14-145 preceded Letter 14-152, the summary begins with Letter 14-152 because Letter 14-145 is a no-action letter that was issued to a specific (and anonymous) market participant and cannot be relied on by other market participants. In contrast, Letter 14-152 was addressed to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) and affords industry-wide relief from CPO registration to certain entities that engage in insurance-linked securities transactions.
Arbitration in Insurance Coverage Disputes: Pluses and MinusesNationalUnderwriter
The document analyzes the perceived advantages and disadvantages of arbitration in insurance coverage disputes. Some key advantages of arbitration include finality due to limited appeals, enforceability of decisions internationally, flexibility in procedures, and neutrality of venue. However, arbitration can also limit legal protections for the weaker party, decrease precedent from favorable rulings, and eliminate principles such as construing ambiguity against the insurer. While arbitration may be faster and cheaper, these benefits are limited in complex cases. Policyholders should consider negotiating arbitration provisions or avoiding policies with mandatory arbitration clauses.
Supreme Court of Texas Marries Contractual Limitations to Insurance PoliciesNationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of Texas Marries Contractual Limitations to Insurance Policies by Tom Stilwell, John English, Justin T. Scott, and J. Sean Jain
In a case that has been closely watched by the oil and gas industry and its insurers, the Supreme Court of Texas recently issued its opinion in In re Deepwater Horizon, and settled the debate concerning whether a company’s insurance policies stood alone or were married to and dependent upon an insured’s limited obligation in a separate contract to insure and indemnify a third party. Specifically, the court found that Transocean’s $750 million primary and excess insurance policies did not offer unrestricted coverage to BP as an additional insured, but instead incorporated and were bound by the
limitations placed on Transocean’s liability under the parties’ drilling contract (the “Drilling Contract”).
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Pa...NationalUnderwriter
Supreme Court of New Jersey Confirms "Fairly Debatable" Standard for First Party Bad Faith; Acknowledges Relevance of Actual Investigation by Frederic J. Giordano and Robert F. Pawlowski
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently issued an important pair of decisions for policyholders with bad faith claims against their first-party insurance companies in Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group[1] and Wadeer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company.[2] In Badiali and Wadeer, the court reiterated the narrow “fairly debatable” standard as the threshold for bad faith claims in New Jersey. But, the court also opened the door to modify this standard in the Badiali decision by recognizing the relevance of the actual claims handling in a particular case.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Rig...NationalUnderwriter
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Policyholders May Assign Their Statutory Right to Recover Punitive Damages Arising from Insurer¹s Bad Faith by Sara N. Brown and Roberta D. Anderson
In an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wolfe[1] that a policyholder may assign statutory bad faith claims under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, Section 8371,[2] to a third party claimant.
Importantly, Wolfe resolves the conflict among Pennsylvania and federal decisions regarding the assignability of the right to recover statutory bad faith damages, and allows assignees to seek punitive damages under the statute against an insurer who acts in bad faith.
New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to In...NationalUnderwriter
New York State Department of Financial Services Expands Its Cyber Focus to Insurers by Eric R. Dinallo, Jeremy Feigelson, David A. O’Neil, Jim Pastore, and Jordan R. Friedland
The New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) recently announced a major expansion of its cybersecurity efforts: DFS will require insurers to respond to a special “comprehensive risk assessment” on cybersecurity, with those assessments to be followed by an enhanced focus on cybersecurity as part of DFS’s regular examinations of insurers. DFS’s announcement expands to insurance the increasingly rigorous approach it has recently applied to banks in the area of cyber security. More importantly, it offers critical guidance to all industries about what regulators will consider adequate precautions and preparation in this area.
Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Inju...NationalUnderwriter
Migrating Sand Triggers Separate Policy Limits for CGL Policy¹s Personal Injury and Property Damage Coverages by Michael S. Levine and Matthew T. McLellan
Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an AuditNationalUnderwriter
Cyber Security and Insurance Coverage Protection: The Perfect Time for an Audit by Lynda Bennett
2014 ended almost the same way that it began for most companies – having concerns about cyber security and hackers. At the beginning of the year, the news cycle was focused on breaches that took place in the consumer product space as Target, Michael’s, Neiman Marcus, and Home Depot worked fast and furious to address breaches that led to concerns about a massive amount of credit card information possibly being “in the open.” Later in the year, we learned that corporate giants like JPMorgan Chase and Apple were not immune from cyber security breaches as still more personally identifiable information and very personal photographs were released into the public domain. Finally, as 2014 drew to a close, the entertainment industry was further rocked by the cyber-attack on Sony Corp., which led to even broader concerns about national security and terrorist threats.
Class Actions: Insurance Related Claims
by Thomas F. Segalla
Whether prosecuting or opposing a motion for class certification, within the context of insurance related claims, there are certain principles that are critical to determining the allegations that are necessary to successfully assert such claims and the nature of any challenge to a motion to certify the punitive class. As the court noted, in the case of Deborah Mahon v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.:[1]
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad ...NationalUnderwriter
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad Faith Claim Against First-Party Insurer by Michael S. Levine
In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. GRM Mgmt., LLC,[1] a federal district court denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad-faith claim arising out of the insurer’s denial of its policyholder’s claim for property damage and loss of business income following the theft of rooftop air conditioning units from the policyholder’s hotel. The ruling is significant because it illustrates that Virginia law supports first-party bad-faith claims against insurers.
CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Cert...NationalUnderwriter
CFTC Grants No-Action Relief to Commodity Pool Operators with Respect to Certain Insurance-Linked Securitization Vehicles
Toward the end of 2014, the staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) Division of Swap Dealer
and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) issued two letters affecting insurance-linked securitization vehicles: CFTC Letter No. 14-145[1] and CFTC Letter No. 14-152.[2]
Both CFTC Letters 14-152 and 14-145, which are summarized below, afford relief from certain Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”) compliance obligations. Although Letter 14-145 preceded Letter 14-152, the summary begins with Letter 14-152 because Letter 14-145 is a no-action letter that was issued to a specific (and anonymous) market participant and cannot be relied on by other market participants. In contrast, Letter 14-152 was addressed to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) and affords industry-wide relief from CPO registration to certain entities that engage in insurance-linked securities transactions.
N.J. Trial Court Applies "Named Storm" Deductible in Superstorm Sandy Case
A New Jersey trial court has ruled that the “Named Storm” deductible applied to an insured’s claim in a Superstorm Sandy case.
The Case:
Wakefern Food Corporation, a buying cooperative of owners/operators of Shoprite and PriceRite supermarkets that purchased commercial property insurance from Lexington Insurance Company, claimed over $50 million in losses from Superstorm Sandy. Lexington paid about $22 million, and Wakefern sued the insurer.
Wakefern asserted that Superstorm Sandy was not a “Named Storm” by definition when it hit New Jersey and its losses had occurred. It asserted that when the storm hit New Jersey at approximately 8:00 p.m. EDT on October 29, 2012, the storm was not declared by the National Weather Service to be a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or tropical depression, as its policy defined Named Storm. Wakefern pointed out that as of 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 29, 2012,
the storm already was “expected to transition into a frontal or wintertime low pressure system shortly.” Wakefern
contended that by 7:00 p.m. EDT, the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center (“NHC”) had declared the storm a “Post-Tropical Cyclone.” Wakefern argued that a “Post-Tropical Cyclone” was defined in the glossary of NHC terms as its own weather event and that a Post-Tropical Cyclone was a “former tropical cyclone” not a “Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone, Tropical Storm or Tropical Depression.”
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-...NationalUnderwriter
Clarifying Bad Faith Jurisprudence in Virginia, Federal Court Recognizes Bad-Faith Claim Against First-Party Insurer
In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. GRM Mgmt., LLC,[1] a federal district court denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad-faith claim arising out of the insurer’s denial of its policyholder’s claim for property damage and loss of business income following the theft of rooftop air conditioning units from the policyholder’s hotel. The ruling is significant because it illustrates that Virginia law supports first-party bad-faith claims against insurers.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Well Contamin...NationalUnderwriter
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that standard pollution exclusions in insurance policies bar coverage for groundwater contamination resulting from the application of manure and septic waste as fertilizers. Specifically, the court found that while manure and septic waste may have beneficial uses as fertilizers, they unambiguously fall under the definition of "pollutants" in the insurance policies once they contaminate water supplies and cause damage. The ruling resolved conflicting lower court decisions on this issue. However, the court noted there may still be limitations to the pollution exclusion depending on the specific circumstances.
New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Fam...NationalUnderwriter
New York High Court Finds Lead Exposure Injuries to Children of Different Families a Single Loss for Coverage Purposes
In its recent decision in Nesmith v. Allstate Ins. Co.,[1] the New York Court of Appeals ruled that lead paint exposure
injuries suffered by the children of two different families occupying the same apartment in successive periods constitute a single “accidental loss” subject to a single per-occurrence limit pursuant to the non-cumulation clause in two successive policies issued by a landlord’s insurer.
February14 IRS Valentine’s Day Words of Wisdom by Jay KatzNationalUnderwriter
The document is a collection of 14 "Valentine's Day Words of Wisdom" from the IRS that play on concepts from tax law in relation to the holiday of Valentine's Day. Each item presents a humorous or punny reference to a tax concept such as accelerated depreciation for lingerie rentals, characterizing a QTIP trust as the "tip of the iceberg", or announcing the launch of a dating website called QDOTCOM for citizens seeking non-citizen spouses. The document is intended to be lighthearted and poke fun at tax law concepts through the lens of Valentine's Day.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordina...
Chemical Leaks and Spills (From FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center)
1. The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center
The following article is from National Underwriter’s latest online resource,
FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center.
CHEMICAL LEAKS AND SPILLS
April 29, 2014 Neil S. Shifrin, Ph.D.
Historical leaks and spills are responsible for a significant portion of today’s Superfund cleanups. Since about 1974, the Clean Water Act has required spill prevention and containment, but leaks and spills continue to create pollution issues today. Underground leakage remains difficult to detect, and engineers continue their struggle with leak prevention.
Even a small leak, equivalent to a leaky faucet, can create a liquid chemical pool of about 4,000 gallons in the subsurface
if left undetected for 50 years. That is enough to contaminate 100 billion gallons of groundwater if that chemical had
a drinking water standard of five micrograms per liter (μg/l), such as benzene. Unquestionably, responsible parties at
Superfund sites pay dearly for this issue, but it is important to understand how leaks and spills occur in order to help
prevent them in the future.
This article begins by providing an overview of the nature of chemical leaks and spills, as recognized in the engineering literature and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). This article then summarizes available information on the impact and extent of occurrences of leaks and spills due to key sources: accidental spills, mechanical equipment failure, corrosion, and geologic conditions and other natural phenomena. Finally, the article provides a case study of the problem of leaks and spills in the manufactured gas industry that was active from 1850 to 1950. Many of the references presented are dated, which demonstrates how longstanding the issue has been, and how some of today’s conditions at Superfund sites were inadvertent. Modern engineering has considerably improved the means of controlling leaks and spills (e.g., corrosion protection), but leaks and spills still occur and remain significant. Engineering journals continue to advertise improvements and solutions.
Leaks and Spills: Occurrence and Detection
A leak is a release from a storage or conveyance vessel—for example, a drip from a pipe, pump, or tank. A spill is an
unintended release, usually during transfer—for example, the drip from a gas station nozzle when we fill our cars, a kicked-over can, or an oil tanker ripped open by running ashore. Leaks and spills occur throughout modern society,
at home, in public spaces, and in industry. Although their potential environmental or health effects have not been
understood in the past, the element of economic loss has always been a consideration. Industry generally has viewed leaks as a waste of valuable material.[1],[2] Some companies have even had leak-prevention committees,[3] a reflection
of how seriously the issue could be viewed.
Industrial facilities are a key source of leaks and spills, because they often have many tanks, pipes, and pumps. Many tanks, pipes, and appurtenances are located underground to conserve manufacturing space and to avoid weather or traffic. A leak from such subsurface equipment is much more difficult to detect than one from aboveground equipment. [4],[5],[6] The EPA’s underground storage tank (“UST”) program emphasizes this point. In the 1980s, the EPA determined that the limit of leakage detection from USTs was about 0.05 gallons per hour, or 1.2 gallons per day.[7] Of the several
million USTs in service at the time, the EPA estimated that almost 300,000 were leaking, with about half of the leaks
reaching groundwater.[8],[9],[10] Weston (1944) reported that 0.5 to 3.0 percent of crude oil in large refineries “escape[s]
to the sewers in the form of free oil from leaks, spills, etc.”[11] Lindsey (1975) reported that “[o]ver 13,000 spills
representing nearly 20 million gallons (Mgal)” were released in the United States annually.[12]
Inadvertent and undocumented leaks and spills can occur through a number of mechanisms, including accidental
spills (e.g., overfilling tanks, drippage during material transfer, overturned or broken tanks as materials are transferred); mechanical equipment failure (e.g., cracked or broken piping, tanks, and pumps; loosened or broken pipe joints);
corrosion; and geologic conditions and natural phenomena (e.g., damage from fire, floods, earthquakes, and ground
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
2. subsidence).[13] The EPA has similarly confirmed these mechanisms during its consideration of UST leakage—corrosion, overfills, installation mistakes, and pipe failure.[14]
The impact of these mechanisms often is more pronounced as equipment ages—nearly everything “wears out” at some point. In addition, new equipment often leaks when first put in service and tested, a condition engineers refer to as “shakedown.” Thus, leaks may occur during the entire service period of equipment: at first during shakedown, and later due to aging. Writing about oil refineries, Roy F. Weston, an environmental engineer in the 1950s, noted that “[l]eaks and spills are practically unavoidable…”[15] While they may be unavoidable, they are not really predictable. Other general observations about leakage include:
- From interviews, inventory records, and direct measurement of tank tightness, the EPA estimated that 35 percent (189,000) of all underground motor fuel storage tanks leaked at an average rate of 0.32 gallons/hour (7.7 gallons/ day; 2,800 gallons/year).[16]
- Tank leakage rates as high as one gallon/day were still sometimes undetectable as of 1986.[17]
- Examining records from all 50 states, consulting firm Versar, Inc. (1986) identified 12,444 UST release incidents
between 1970 and 1985. Since many releases had not been reported, these incidents represented “only a fraction
of the total number of underground storage tank releases.”[18]
- In 1977, “pipeline breaks and leaks cause[d] about 500 oil spills a year, discharging over one million gallons.”[19]
- Of the oil pipeline leaks documented in 1997, 18 percent were “due to outside force or third- party damage,” 16 percent were “due to material construction defects,” and 45 percent were due to “operational incidents.”[20]
- As late as 1997, the EPA observed that small leaks representing up to one percent of flow could “go unnoticed for weeks.”[21]
- Despite regulations and operational improvements in the fluid transportation industry, the EPA noted there were still about 20 large oil spills (1,000 barrels or more) and 1,401 hazardous liquid spills on U.S. pipelines between 1988 and 1994, representing 1.2 million barrels of lost product.[22]
Despite how widespread leaks have been and still remain, there is a long history of literature describing both how
engineers believed equipment could be made leak-free and also the required diligence to detect and repair leaks. For example almost a hundred years ago, Meade and Alrich discussed many types of leaks that could occur, while describing how to design/construct equipment to avoid them.[23], [24] Even during that early industrial era, there were many
recommendations about how to repair leaks if they occurred.[25], [26] On the other hand, the problem was relentless
and has been long recognized as requiring constant diligence to avoid and fix leaks.[27],[28]
Leaks and Spills: Key Sources
This section provides examples of the impacts from leaks and spills that result from accidental spills, mechanical
equipment failure, corrosion, and geologic conditions or other natural phenomena.
Accidental Spills
According to Versar, Inc. (1986),[29] accidental spills accounted for approximately 15 percent of all reported releases.
Examples and statistics regarding accidental spills include the following:
- Unloading oil from the bottom of a tank car results in the loss of “a gallon or two every time a car is unloaded.”[30]
- Rail tanks used for transporting fluids occasionally developed leaks, causing “alarming accidents.”[31]
- “Over 13,000 spills representing nearly 20 Mgal of potentially damaging and dangerous materials occur yearly in the US.”[32] Of the 20 million gallons of materials released annually circa 1975, five percent resulted from accidental spills.
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
3. - “Overfilling of underground tanks and product transfer spills occur in commercial and industrial settings…
Frequently, a tank may become so full that there is no room to drain the delivery hose prior to disconnection,
leading to a product spill of up to 25 gallons.”[33]
- “The documented quantity released from overfills is less than 100 gallons in most cases.”[34]
- Lancy noted that the “second most severe pollution hazard… [was] accidental discharges… [and] nearly every process solution… is prone to be discharged through an accident… while not common… to spring a leak of such magnitude… a slow leak [of] 1 to 2 inches/day could go undetected for months….”[35]
Mechanical Equipment Failure
While accidental spills contribute to product losses, large product leaks are primarily due to mechanical equipment
failure.[36] Equipment failures that may result in loss of product include catastrophic failures (e.g., explosions),
equipment flaws, or improper equipment installation that cannot be tested until actual startup (engineers call this period “shakedown”); and mechanical wear, which occurs as equipment is used over time. For example, gas works tanks installed in the early twentieth century often leaked as they were first filled.[37],[38] Poorer, older construction techniques or
materials often caused tank and pipe leaks.[39],[40] Examples of mechanical wear include pump bearing/seal wear,
loose fittings, worn gaskets, worn joints, cracks or ruptures, vibration or other friction disturbances, and damage from external sources (e.g., collision with outside equipment).[41] Statistics regarding mechanical equipment failure include
the following:
- Of the approximately 20 million gallons spilled annually circa 1975, approximately 13.8 million gallons (69 percent) were released due to equipment failure.[42]
- Besselievre, a well-known wastewater engineer, noted, “Regardless of good housekeeping and maintenance, pumps will occasionally leak at the glands… No matter how good the housekeeping may be in an industrial plant, leakage will occur.”[43]
- When considering control technologies for pumps, flanges, and valves in the coke industry, the EPA noted the
experts who questioned whether these technologies would enable facilities with equipment leaks to achieve
compliance with proposed regulations.[44]
- As of 2001, “[s]tructural failures are the most common cause of US pipeline spills, representing 40% of spills.
Seventy-five percent of structural failure is attributed to corrosion, 15% to defective pipes, and 10% were attributed to defective welds.”[45]
Corrosion
Corrosion also plays a prominent role in product releases to the environment.[46] “Corrosion results when bare metal [e.g., steel or iron used in tank and pipe construction] and soil and moisture conditions combine to produce an
underground electric current that destroys the hard metal. Over time, corrosion creates holes and leaks develop.”[47]
This natural, electrochemical deterioration of metal manifests as rusting, pitting, cracking, and blistering. In 1986, 25 years after fiberglass tanks came into industrial use, Versar, Inc., estimated[48] that 89 percent of tanks subject to UST regulation were constructed of steel.[49] Small losses due to corrosion are problematic to detect and prevent, especially for
underground equipment, and can accumulate to a large volume of lost material.[50] Little was known for many years about how to manage corrosion,[51] but today there are textbooks on the subject and cathodic protection is the norm. Statistics regarding corrosion of tanks and pipelines include:
- Versar, Inc. (1986)[52] found that “[c]orrosion is the dominant cause of failure for tank systems [USTs] more than 10 years old. For example, 71% of the failures of tank systems between 11 and 20 years old, and 60% of those more than 20 years old, were caused by corrosion.”
- Regarding unprotected steel USTs, Meehan stated, “Under average conditions, tank perforation and leakage develop in fifteen to twenty years. Corrosion-induced failures should generally be suspected for bare steel tankage with otherwise unexplained leakage beginning ten to thirty years after tank installation.”[53]
- Twenty percent of oil pipeline leaks documented in 1997 were due to corrosion.[54]
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
4. - As of 2001, “[s]tructural failures are the most common cause of U.S. pipeline spills, representing 40% of spills.
Seventy-five percent of structural failure is attributed to corrosion….”[55]
- Gorman noted how engineers “in all sectors of the petroleum industry” in the 1920s and 1930s fought a
never-ending battle against corrosion, and hence against leaks.[56]
- Jackson noted the problem that leakage was often not detected because tank corrosion was often underground. [57]
- Hendrickson noted leakage problems from pipe corrosion.[58]
- Bigness noted that corrosion has been a problem since the Iron Age: “when water put in its appearance the steel equipment began to suffer… tanks have been known to be corroded to failure in less than six months….”[59]
Geologic Conditions and Other Natural Phenomena
Frost heaves, sinkholes, other subsidence events, and even tree roots cause many pipes and tanks to rupture. Infiltration/ inflow studies for sewer systems in hundreds of towns across the United States confirm this, and government agencies have programs to study and prevent these occurrences. One recent sewerage study found 13 percent of 60,000 feet of pipe examined to be leaking, primarily at “gusher” or “runner” amounts.[60] Older tanks were often built with masonry placed into the ground for support, but the ground could shift and cause cracks in the masonry.[61],[62] Temperature variations also have long been known to cause ruptures and other types of leakage.[63] Comprehensive statistics
regarding releases related to natural phenomena include the following: of the 20 million gallons of materials released annually circa 1975, eight percent resulted from natural phenomena such as floods or earthquakes;[64] and Versar, Inc. reported that approximately seven percent of UST releases in its study were caused by natural phenomena.[65]
The Case of the Manufactured Gas Industry
The manufactured gas industry, which operated from about 1850 to 1950—through the pinnacle of the Industrial
Revolution—was ahead of its time for wastewater and byproduct engineering. It provides a good example of a leak/spill legacy, as its 3,000 mostly urban sites receive state Superfund cleanups today. A review of about 200 contemporaneous papers from that industry reveals the following common occurrences of historical leaks and spills, remedies, and
improvements attempted (italicized text indicates direct quotes or paraphrasing).
- A Practical Treatise on the Manufacture and Distribution of Coal Gas, 1877—provides numerous examples of leaks and how to prevent them, with a good example of shakedown issues: On filling the tank, about three months after its completion, unexpectedly, it lost considerably during the first few days.[66]
- Boston Gas photo, 1886—Subsurface major leak in gasholder at startup (so severe it was noticed, and the holder was excavated/repaired).[67]
- The Manufacture of Illuminating Gas, 1887—discusses gas leaks from steel pipes: … notwithstanding the utmost care [of sealing the joints] there is considerable leakage….[68]
- The American Gas Engineer and Superintendents’ Handbook, 1888—[gas]holders can leak… poor pipe casting
can cause ruptures.[69]
- Gasholder Construction, New England Association of Gas Engineers, 1898—perfectly tight tanks have been the exception rather than the rule… may sooner or later develop leaks which may be difficult to remedy… there is no doubt in my mind that many steel bottoms will become leaky in the future.[70]
- Repairing Holder Tanks, 1891—Tight gasholders are the exception, leaky ones the rule; at least this has been my experience….[71]
- Self-Instruction for Students in Gas Manufacture, circa 1900—tightness of the tank depends, to a great extent, upon the material of which the earth backing is formed and the care….[72]
- What is the Best Method of Stopping Leaks in a Brick Tank? 1904—After the tank was finished and filled with water, it cracked….[73]
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
5. - Removal of the Last Traces of Oil and Tar from Water of Condensation, 1905 (Ohio Gas Light Association)—sudden changes in temperature [addressed so as to]… not produce leakage.[74]
- Repairing the Cup of a Two-Lift 500,000 Cubic Foot Gas Holder, 1907—The leaks had from time to time been patched with soft patches, using an iron clamp with red lead putty….[75]
- Report of the New Jersey Sewerage Commission, 1908—Sources of Liquid Wastes… Leaks, or drips from tar tanks, scrubbers and condensers, receiving tanks, purifiers, relief holders, oil barrels, oil tanks, pipes, etc., which may seep into the ground… Often… important leaks occur in tanks sunk in the ground [and are not discovered].[76]
- The Disposal of the Waste Products of Gas Works, 1908—The various leaks… are partly avoidable but some cannot be easily done away with. If the leaks occur… above ground… they can be done away with. Often… below ground. In former days it was a common custom to put all these tar tanks, settling tanks, etc., in the ground and build them of wood. In time… leaky….[77]
- Catechism of Central Station Gas Engineering in the United States, 1909—almost impossible to build a brick [holder] wall that will be water tight of itself [but it is possible with proper technique].[78]
- AGA Proceedings, Brick, Concrete and Steel Holder Tanks, 1910—The brick tank seems to be regarded as the
criterion of prudence and conservatism [but not well founded—goes on to discuss conditions when brick tanks can crack (e.g., nearby pilings or poor mudding) and offers 40 pages of design instruction].[79]
- Reminiscences of the Gas Business, 1912—When the holder was filled a great many leaks were found. [i.e.,
shakedown].[80]
- Ballantine v. Public Service (New Jersey) suit, 1914—Expert witness in the trial noted it is “perfectly well known that concrete may have lots of regular network with cracks in it not yet visible to the eye,” and that “if such were the
case it would leak water and tar.”[81]
- Gas Light Journal, 1914—question of storing tar in a masonry holder should be carefully studied, for tar may be lost by leakage….[82]
- Operation of Gas Works, 1917—Experience has shown that a masonry tank will allow very little coal tar to seep through it but water-gas tar frequently escapes [and recommends steel tanks for CWG tar].[83]
- The Disposal of Wastewater from Water Gas Plants on Streams adjacent to Parks, 1919—In the early days… tar waste from the works had leaked through broken pipe lines and from the wooden separator box….[84]
- Steam Plant Apparatus, 1920—we are all prone to overlook leaks that are out of sight and the average gas man has trouble enough without looking for more.[85]
- Producer Division, Committee Report, 1920—piping developed leaks due to change in chemistry from change in feedstock.[86]
- The Demand Limiting Meter and Engineering Problem involved in the Application of the Three-Part Rate as a Basis of Selling Gas Service, 1920—In general, the leakage rate will vary in direct proportion to the rate of gas demand. [87]
- Tar Extractors, 1920—large amount of leakage [if tar extractors are not built properly].[88]
- Disposal of Gas Plant Wastes, 1920—Brick holder pits sometimes develop cracks from settling. Leaks often occur in gas, tar and oil lines which cause considerable damage before they are discovered.[89]
- The Storage of Gas, 1921—discusses the many types of leaks and how to -design/construct to avoid them.[90]
- Disposal of Wastes from Gas Plants, 1921—water overflows the top of the tank and scatters all the water and tar around the adjacent yard space [accident—letting the bell rise too high].[91]
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
6. - Wrinkle No. 8 to Stop Leaks in Pump Pits, 1922—seepage through the walls of a concrete pump pit [and how to fix it, example of how many types of equipment leaked].[92]
- Gas Engineers’ Compendium: A Collection of Statistics, Formulae, Rules and Data for the Everyday Use of
Gasworks Officials and Students, 1924—shows conclusively that, when properly made, they are quite tight [benefits of reinforced concrete, which was viewed as a solution to a pervasive problem of leaking holders].[93]
- Corrosion of Underground Pipe, 1926—is a subject on which there is a considerable lack of information.[94]
- Repairs of Leaks in Sectional Gas Holders, 1927—A great many small leaks will be found to occur on seams and rivets which can be repaired….[95]
- Corrosion Has Been a Problem Since the Iron Age, 1929—when water put in its appearance the steel equipment began to suffer and in some parts of that field tanks have been known to be corroded to failure in less than six months….[96]
- The Manufacture, Distribution and Utilization of Gas, 1930—[Gas] Oil tanks … surrounded by earth dikes… should a serious leak result….[97]
- Gas Holder Inspection Service, circa 1930—hidden corrosion [causes leaks], inspection services.[98]
- Distribution Costs as Affected by a Combined “Dri-Gas” and Naphthalene Washer, 1930—corrosion out of sight [holder leaks/damage].[99]
- Abstracts of Papers Relating to Gas Manufacture, 1930—regarding pipe corrosion.[100]
- Removal of Sulfur by Oxide and Liquid Purification, 1931—purifiers have also been made with brick or concrete
bottoms and sides but they cannot be relied upon for tightness.[101]
- Gas Tanks Now and Then, 1934—When these same [masonry] designs …the results were frequently very
unsatisfactory and the leakage so great that it was necessary to reconstruct the tanks. [new design (steel tanks)
are better].[102]
- The New Modern Gas Works Practice, 1934—need to prevent holder corrosion.[103]
- Works and Distribution Inspection Report, 1934 (Concord, New Hampshire, inspection)—water is seeping through
a long horizontal crack in the concrete retaining wall around this holder tank….[104]
- Industrial Wastes from the Equipment Manufacturers’ Viewpoint, 1939—increase … yields… by plugging leaks…. [105]
- Manufacture of Concentrated Gas Liquor, 1953—rail tanks used for transporting the concentrated liquor
occasionally developed leaks…alarming accident-tank was overflowing….[106]
Several observations can be made from this long (but still abbreviated) list. First, leaks were common but never
intentional. Second, many factors caused leaks and spills. Third, when maintenance was possible, leaks were fixed.
Finally, tank technology improvements reduced, but did not eliminate, leaks.
Conclusion
Leaks and spills represent a significant source of subsurface contamination. Their historical causes were numerous but inadvertent—for every report of a leak or its cause, there would appear to be a corresponding report of how to fix or avoid it. Nevertheless, their occurrence was endemic despite engineering improvement and left a legacy of significant modern-day environmental response. Some causes have been fixed with today’s engineering knowledge of corrosion and materials/construction, and regulations attempt to manage the impacts of leaks and spills. Despite today’s improvements, however, the problem will likely continue for as long as fluids need engineered storage and transport.
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
7. About the Author
Neil S. Shifrin, Ph.D., of Berkeley Research Group, consults on a wide range of environmental engineering topics, including water quality, contaminant fate and transport, hazardous waste site cleanups, and environmental response cost liability/allocation.
He may be contacted at nshifrin@brg-expert.com.
[1] L. Schmidt, C.J. Wilhelm, and O.S. Jones, Disposal of Petroleum Wastes on Oil-producing Properties, with a Chapter on Soils and Water Resources of Kansas Oil Areas. R.I. 3394, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations No. 3394 (1938). 21 pp.
[2] R.F. Weston, “Waste Control at Oil Refineries,” Chem. Eng. Prog. 48(9): 459–467 (1952).
[3] H.E. Morriss, “How Monsanto Controls Air and Water Pollution,” Oil Gas J. 53(8): 114–116 (1954).
[4] R.L. Greene, “Steam Plant Apparatus,” in Proceedings of the American Gas Association Second Annual Convention, November 15–20, 1920, Hotel Pennsylvania, New York, NY: Technical Section: 224–230 (1920).
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Underground Motor Fuel Storage Tanks: A National Survey. Volumes I and II. Prepared for EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA-560/5-86-013 (1986, May). 577 pp.
[6] G.C. Whipple, “The Disposal of the Waste Products of Gas Works,” Eng. Record 58(16): 434–437 (1908).
[7] EPA, Straight Talk on Tanks: Leak Detection Methods For Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks And Piping, EPA EPA- 510-B-05-001 (2005, September; revised April 6, 2009).
[8] EPA, Musts For USTs: A Summary Of Federal Regulations For Underground Storage Tank Systems. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA 510-K-95-002 (1995, July). 40 pp.
[9] National Fire Prevention Association, Underground Flammable and Combustible Liquid Tanks, Boston (1964, 1986).
[10] EPA, Musts for USTs: A Summary of the New Regulations for Underground Storage Tank Systems, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, EPA-530/UST-88-008 (1990, July). 39 pp.
[11] R.F. Weston, “The Waste Disposal and Utilization Problems of the Petroleum Industry,” in Proceedings of the First Industrial Waste Utilization Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN: 98–125 (1944).
[12] A.W. Lindsey, “Ultimate Disposal of Spilled Hazardous Materials,” Chem. Eng. 23: 107–114 (1975).
[13] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Technical Resource Material: Transport and Storage Vessels (2006).
[14] EPA (1986).
[15] Weston (1952).
[16] EPA (1986).
[17] EPA (1986).
[18] Versar, Inc., Summary of State Reports on Releases from Underground Storage Tanks. Report to EPA, Office of Solid Waste (Washington, DC), EPA-600/M-86-020 (1986, August). 95 pp.
[19] EPA, Oil Spills, and Spills of Hazardous Substances. Office of Water Program Operations, Oil and Special Materials Control Division (1977, March). 38 pp.
[20] EPA, EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the Ground Transportation Industry Trucking, Railroad, and Pipeline. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA/310-R-97-002 (1997, September). 134 pp.
[21] EPA (1997).
[22] EPA (1997).
[23] A. Meade, “The Storage of Gas,” in A. Meade (ed.), Modern Gasworks Practice (Second Edition), London: Benn Brothers, Ltd. (1921).
[24] H.W. Alrich, “Gas Tanks Now and Then, Am. Gas J. 148: 75–79 (1934).
[25] H.A. Allyn, “Gasholder Construction,” in Proceedings of the New England Association of Gas Engineers at the 27th, 28th and 29th Annual Meetings, February 17–18, 1897, February 16–17, 1898, February 17–18, 1899, Boston, MA, New Bedford, MA: New Bedford Printing Company: 150–172 (1898).
[26] P.W. Prutzman, “Sulphur and Oil Gas,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Annual Meetings of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, September 17–19, 1907; September 15–17, 1908, Santa Cruz, California (1907).
[27] Whipple (1908).
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
8. [28] J.R. Wohrley, “Tar Extractors,” in Proceedings of the American Gas Association Second Annual Convention, November 15–20, 1920, Hotel Pennsylvania, New York, NY: Technical Section (1920). 480 pp.
[29] Versar, Inc. (1986), supra note 18.
[30] F.H. Shelton, “The Nuisance Question in Gas Works,” in Proceedings of the New England Association of Gas Engineers, 27th, 28th, and 29th Annual Meetings, February 17–18, 1897, February 16–17, 1898, February 17–18, 1899, New Bedford, MA: New Bedford Printing Co.: 314–323 (1899).
[31] N. Calvert, “Manufacture of Concentrated Gas Liquor,” Gas Journal (1953, December 23): 791–796.
[32] Lindsey (1975).
[33] D.S. Etkin, “Analysis of Oil Spill Trends in the United States and Worldwide,” in International Oil Spill Conference: 1291–1300 (2001). Accessed at: http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper4.pdf.
[34] Versar, Inc. (1986).
[35] L.E. Lancy, “Pollution Control in Plating Operations,” in H.F. Lund (ed.), Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. (1971).
[36] Versar, Inc. (1986).
[37] Howard, “What is the Best Method of Stopping Leaks in a Brick Tank?” in Proceedings of the Western Gas Association, 24th Annual Meeting: 306 (1904).
[38] W. Wallace, “Reminiscences of the Gas Business,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Indiana Gas Association, January 17–18, 1912, Indianapolis, IN (1912). 98 pp.
[39] J.H. Braine, “Repairs of Leaks in Sectional Gas Holders: Detailed explanation of the method of procedure to be used in repairing various kinds of leaks” (excerpt), Am. Gas Assoc. Mon. (1927, February): 71–72.
[40] W. Mooney, The American Gas Engineer and Superintendents’ Handbook, New York: Mooney (1888).
[41] Versar, Inc. (1986).
[42] Lindsey (1975).
[43] E.B. Besselievre, The Treatment of Industrial Wastes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. (1969).
[44] EPA, Benzene emissions from coke by-product recovery plants, benzene storage vessels, equipment leaks, and ethylbenzene/ styrene process vents: Background information and responses to technical comments for 1989 final decisions (1989).
[45] Etkin (2001).
[46] Versar, Inc. (1986).
[47] EPA (1995).
[48] Versar, Inc. (1986), supra note 18.
[49] Id.
[50] Etkin (2001).
[51] D. Finley, “Corrosion of Underground Pipe,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Convention of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, August 23–27, Pasadena, California: 241 (1926).
[52] Versar, Inc. (1986), supra note 18.
[53] R.C Meehan, “A Natural History of Underground Fuel Tank Leakage,” Environmental Claims Journal 5(3): 339–348 (1993).
[54] EPA (1997).
[55] Etkin (2001).
[56] H.S. Gorman, “Eliminating Corrosion and Monitoring Flows,” in H.S. Gorman (ed.), Redefining Efficiency: Pollution Concerns, Regulatory Mechanisms, and Technological Change in the U.S. Petroleum Industry, Akron, OH: The University of Akron Press: 195–214 (2001).
[57] W.C. Jackson, “Distribution Costs as Affected by a Combined ‘Dri-gas’ and Naphthalene Washer,” Gas Journal (1930, May 28): 512–515.
[58] A.V. Hendrickson, “Abstracts of Papers Relating to Gas Manufacture,” in Institution of Gas Engineers: Transactions, 1929–30: 782–827 (1930).
[59] L.G. Bigness, “Corrosion has been a problem since the iron age and research has done little to combat it when hydrogen sulphide is the activating agent; control of moisture tends to minimize attack,” Oil Weekly (1929, January 25): 27–35.
[60] J. Rinner and S. Pryputniewicz, “To Zoom or not to Zoom,” Civil Eng. Pract. 23(2): 33–40 (2008).
[61] H.W. Alrich, “Brick, Concrete and Steel Holder Tanks,” in Proceedings of the American Gas Institute, 5th Annual Meeting, held October 19–21, 1910, in New York, NY: 567–607 (1910).
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
9. [62] L.J. Willien, “Disposal of Gas Plant Wastes,” Gas Age 349(4) (1920).
[63] J.S. McIlhenny, “Removal of the Last Traces of Oil and Tar from Water of Condensation,” in Proceedings of the Ohio Gas Light Association Twenty-first Annual Meeting held at Hotel Schenley, Pittsburgh, PA, March 15–17, 1905 (1905).
[64] Lindsey (1975).
[65] Versar, Inc. (1986).
[66] W. Richards, A Practical Treatise on the Manufacture and Distribution of Coal Gas, London: E. & F.N. Spon (1877).
[67] Boston Gas Archive of Boston College Burns Library, Boston Gas Photo (c. 1886).
[68] J.D. Weeks, “The Manufacture of Illuminating Gas,” Chantaguan 8: 164–166 (1887).
[69] Mooney (1988).
[70] Allyn (1898).
[71] F.C. Sherman, “Repairing holder tanks,” Am. Gas Light J. (1891, March 9): 331–333.
[72] Mentor, Self-Instruction for Students in Gas Manufacture, being answers to questions based on the honors grade syllabus in gas manufacture of the city and guilds of London Institute, Second Edition, London: The Gas World Offices (c. 1900).
[73] Howard (1904).
[74] McIlhenny (1905).
[75] G.S. Colquhoun, “Repairing the Cup of a Two-Lift 500,000 Cu. Ft Gas Holder,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Annual Meetings of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, 1907 and 1908, Santa Cruz, CA, Pacific Coast Gas Association: 47 (1907).
[76] G.W. Fuller, Report of the New Jersey Sewerage Commission, Somerville, NJ; The Unionist-Gazette Association, State Printers (1908).
[77] Whipple (1908).
[78] Trustees Gas Educational Fund, Catechism of Central Station Gas Engineering in the United States, Second Edition (1909).
[79] Alrich (1910).
[80] Wallace (1912).
[81] Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, P. Ballantine & Sons v. Public Service Corporation of New Jersey (No. 76), in The Atlantic Reporter 91, Permanent Edition: 97 (1914, June 16).
[82] A. Hansen, “Tar,” Am. Gas Light J. 23: 362–366 (1914).
[83] W.M. Russell, Operation of Gas Works, First Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company (1917).
[84] L.R. Dutton, “The Disposal of Wastewater from Water Gas Plants on Streams adjacent to Parks,” Am. Gas Assoc. Monthly 1(4): 191–193 (1919).
[85] Greene (1920).
[86] R.F. Bacon and W.A. Hamor, Producer Division, Committee Report, in Proceedings of the American Gas Association Second Annual Convention, November 15–20, 1920, Hotel Pennsylvania, New York, NY: Technical section (1920). 480 pp.
[87] H.D. Hancock, “The Demand Limiting Meter and Engineering Problems Involved in the Application of the Three Part Rate as a Basis of Selling Gas Service,” in Proceedings of the American Gas Association Second Annual Convention, November 15–20, 1920, Hotel Pennsylvania, New York, NY: Technical section (1920). 480 pp.
[88] Wohrley (1920).
[89] Willien (1920).
[90] Meade (1921).
[91] F.W. Sperr, “Disposal of Wastes from Gas Plants,” Gas-Age Record (1921): 566–571.
[92] J.E. Kelley, “Wrinkle No. 8 to Stop Leaks in Pump Pits,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Convention of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, September 19–21, 1922, Santa Barbara, California: 451 (1922).
[93] Ernest Benn Limited, Gas Engineers’ Compendium: A collection of statistics, formulae, rules and data for the everyday use of gasworks officials and students (excerpt), New York: D. Van Nostrand Co. (1924).
[94] Finley (1926).
[95] Braine (1927).
[96] Bigness (1929).
[97] C.E. Reinicker, The Manufacture, Distribution and Utilization of Gas, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Inc. (1930).
[98] Stacey Bros. Gas Construction Co., Gas Holder Inspection Service, Bulletin No. 1-44 (c. 1930).
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com