Beginning June 1, 2012 and extending for a period of five years, the General Permit (GAR050000) associated with these activities will be re-issued, and, upon submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI), will authorize new and existing storm water point sources within Georgia to discharge storm water associated with industrial activities to waters of the state. The new permit outlines the types of facilities and their associated Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that would fall under the purview of this permit.

This law was originally written and regulated by the federal level of government and is currently regulated on the state level. However, it is being increasingly regulated on a local government level, especially where these local governments have requirements to regulate the condition of all waters in their respective jurisdictions.

Substantial changes to this new permit will impact the various sectors that it regulates in a variety of different ways. Each sector may have additional suggested best management practices specific to that sector. The requirement to implement additional practices is based in large part on the types of pollutants expected to be present in storm water from that regulated industrial sector. Amongst the newly required practices is the requirement to sample a variety of water quality parameters that may typically be present on a given industrial facility site. The new permit has assigned benchmark calculations, and in some cases numeric effluent limitations, so that it is clear to regulators which sites are in compliance, and where violations to water quality parameters and the permit may exist. Applicants may also have to conduct a dye, smoke, or equivalent test in their storm water system.

One specific and notable aspect of this new permit relates to those regulated activities that are located within one mile of an impaired stream system (303b/305b). These facilities are required to monitor for certain parameters, and corrective action will be required if the discharge exceeds the benchmark value, pollutant of concern listed in the TMDL.

Below is a matrix describing the new storm water permit changes, how these changes may affect you and your industry, and what we can do to help.

We can work with you in planning and implementing practices and sampling that will prevent possible corrective actions. 

Compliance with this permit may require substantially greater cost and effort. If you are required to renew authorization or obtain new authorization under the 2012 General Permit, you will have 30 days from June 1, 2012 to submit a Notice of Intent, 60 days to update or create a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and 180 days to implement that plan. If you aren’t sure of your plan of action, please contact us and we can assist you in making this determination. Our team of environmental scientists and engineers specialize in agency coordination and compliance. We have fulfilled storm water discharge permit requirements for industrial clients across Georgia and, under EPA’s similar Multi-Sector General Permit, across the nation.

For more information please contact Marcus Rubenstein at mrubenstein@woodardcurran.com or 770.622.6766.

New Jersey's Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program is evolving rapidly. On May 7, 2012, the LSRP Program goes into full effect, and all cases subject to the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) must retain an LSRP by this deadline. As of early 2012, thousands of cases have yet to file notification of LSRP retention with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Are you among them? Unsure what you’re required to do? Read on.

Regulatory Enforcement Update  

The NJDEP has indicated that Administrative Orders may be issued to Persons Responsible for Conducting Remediation who are obligated to but have not retained an LSRP after the May 7, 2012 deadline. An Administrative Order is a formal enforcement action that includes a determination that a violation has occurred, an order to take specific actions to correct the violation, and a demand for payment of a specified penalty amount.

While the enforcement strategy unfolds, be aware that the published base penalty for "failure to conduct remediation in accordance with all applicable rules and guidance" outlined in the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites is $8,000. The best way to avoid potential penalties is to ensure that sites subject to the SRRA retain an LSRP and submit the required retention paperwork before the May 7, 2012 deadline.

If your regulated case requires LSRP oversight, or if you need assistance in determining whether your site remediation requires an LSRP, please contact Mark Pietrucha in our East Windsor, NJ office at (609) 448-8110 or mpietrucha@woodardcurran.com.

The implications of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) on the food and beverage industry can be categorized in two ways – direct and slightly indirect. The direct impacts are fairly obvious – required food safety plans, more site visits and higher scrutiny by regulators including the FDA, and more focus on regulating imports. While these direct impacts are incredibly important and worth monitoring closely, they do not show the whole picture. The ripple effect of the FSMA is far reaching and these indirect but powerful influences are reshaping the food and beverage industry.

The FSMA has clear impacts in black and white terms. Legislators, consumers, and manufacturers alike can read and understand the requirements. But the requirements, as powerful and persuasive as they may be, are merely words. What goes on inside the walls of food processing facilities or import warehouses is where the real change occurs. One very large industry-wide impact the FSMA is having on food and beverage manufacturers is the not-so-small notion of rethinking packaging.

The FSMA is centrally focused on preventing contamination. This simple idea has sent shockwaves through the packaging world, forcing food and beverage processors to consider their entire packaging line. Issues such as the need to switch from galvanized steel to the more aseptic stainless steel or the facility’s ability to sanitize packaging equipment have leapt to the front of every industry decision maker’s mind.

The Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute (PMMI), the trade association made up of nearly 600 food and beverage manufacturing companies, is tracking the impact of the FSMA on the packaging of food and beverage closely. Many companies are being forced to rethink their packaging strategies, including line layout, equipment selection or replacement, and overall process. Jim Pittas, Vice President with PMMI, was recently quoted as saying the FSMA has created “a whole new design game” for food and beverage packaging. He noted that “clean design principles” are the dominating the conversation amongst good manufacturers, with the FSMA being the undeniable driving force.

In recent years, sustainability has been the hot topic in the industry, driving many conversations both internally and externally. That focus has shifted to the FSMA and the impacts it is having on the industry as a whole. Unlike sustainability which was largely voluntary, the food safety regulations will be a sink or swim effort for manufacturers. For many, they will rely on the expertise of consultants who can provide the deep bench of engineering solutions while navigating the shifting tides of the FSMA and its implications.

For more information on Woodard & Curran’s Food and Beverage Market and to learn more about the FSMA, food safety plans, and more, please contact one of our industry specialists.

Lloyd Snyder, PE, is a Senior Vice President with Woodard & Curran’s Food and Beverage Market. He can be reached at lsnyder@woodardcurran.com.

Bill McPhail is a Senior Technical Consultant with Woodard & Curran’s Food and Beverage Market. He is HACCP and SQF certified. He can be reached at wmcphail@woodardcurran.com.

Key Changes 

• Labels – Chemical manufacturers and chemical importers must provide a label that includes a pictogram, signal word, hazard statement, and precautionary statement for each hazard class and category to which the chemical belongs. 
• Hazard Classification – Chemical manufacturers and chemical importers must determine the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import. The updated Hazard Communication Standard provides specific criteria to address physical and health hazards of individual chemicals as well as classification of mixtures. 
• Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) – Formerly referred to as material safety data sheets (MSDSs), the new format requires 16 specific sections, providing consistency in the presentation of information.

What does this mean for chemical users?

Chemical users may begin to see changes in labels and safety data sheets as chemical producers adopt the revised Hazard Communication Standard. Chemical users should begin: 

Replacing MSDSs with SDSs as they become available; 

• Training employees on the new label elements and SDS sections; and 
• Updating hazard communication programs if new hazards are identified.

Employers must train employees on the new label elements and SDS format by December 1, 2013 and comply with all modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard by June 1, 2015.

What does this mean for chemical producers?

Chemical producers should begin: 

• Reviewing hazard information for all chemicals produced or imported; 
• Classifying chemicals according to the new classification criteria; 
• Updating labels; and,
• Updating SDSs.

Chemical producers must comply with all modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard by June 1, 2015.

For more information, contact Kelly Camp.

Additional Resources

• OSHA Fact Sheet: Hazard Communication Standard Final Rule
• OSHA’s Hazard Communication Highlights & FAQs
• OSHA’s Hazard Communication Safety & Health Topics
   

In response to industry comments, EPA published a proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler MACT in December 2011 that would adjust the initial date for completing tune-ups to March 21, 2013. As the original tune-up deadline approached there was confusion among area source owners/operators as to when initial tune-ups were required to be completed. Some sources commented that tune-ups, as described by the rule, were not technically feasible for their boilers. Others commented that the large number of small boilers at their facilities made meeting this tune-up deadline impossible. The No Action Assurance provided by EPA establishes that EPA will not pursue enforcement action for failure to complete a tune-up by the compliance date of March 21, 2012.

The letter has been posted to EPA's Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters Web page. If you have any further questions about how this impacts you and your facilities, please contact us.

For more information, contact Kelley Begin.

Here are five tips for this year's Annual Report:

1. Start it now. If you find something wasn't done in 2011, there is still time in March to do some last-minute catch up.
2. Don't leave any blanks. Fill out every box in EPA's form, even if you didn't do anything last year.
3. Make sure the right person signs it. Per 40 CFR 122.22, the report should be signed by either "a principal executive officer or ranking elected official", such as the Town Adminstrator or Mayor.
4. Work together and think creatively. Stormwater management activities are done by commissions and departments such as Conservation, Planning, DPW, Engineering, Health, Water and Sewer; or cable TV, watershed & stream groups, and others in the community. Reach out!
5. Get it in on time! If you are working until the last minute, scan the signed Annual Report and submit it electronically to stormwater.reports@epa.gov.

Further information, Annual Report templates, and mailing information is on EPA's Annual Reporting Requirements page.

If you need any assistance preparing the Annual Report, or have any questions about EPA's Stormwater Program, contact Woodard & Curran's stormwater experts.

The Deadline Is Looming… Or Is It?
Under Boiler MACT, many existing facilities that were not required to have air emissions permits face new requirements. Essentially, if you have an existing oil-, coal-, or biomass-fired boiler, it may need a tune-up by March 21, 2012. Unless, that is, EPA extends the deadline to March 21, 2013 as currently proposed. If the proposed deadline is not formally extended before the current 2012 deadline, EPA will likely stay the effective date of the current rule for 90 days to allow time to finalize the extension. Comments on the proposed extension will be accepted until February 21, 2012. Visit EPA’s Boiler MACT website for a copy of the proposed amendments: http://www.epa.gov/boilercompliance/.

Boiler MACT Boiled Down
Boiler MACT establishes several requirements, which vary depending on the date constructed, size, and fuel type of your boiler:

• Emission limits for criteria and hazardous air pollutants -PM, CO, Hg 
• Operational limits for boilers and any pollution controls the boiler may have 
• Work practice standards for boilers (tune-ups and energy assessments) 
• Emissions testing and continuous monitoring 
• Initial notifications were due 9/17/11 (submit ASAP if you haven’t already) 
• Ongoing reporting and recordkeeping

Requirements differ depending on whether your boiler is defined as “existing,” “new,” or “reconstructed.” You can read the requirements on EPA’s Web site, or contact one of our air quality specialists for help.

Natural Gas – A Simpler Choice?
If you haven’t yet made plans for a tune-up, you do have another option: convert your boiler to natural gas. Boilers that use only natural gas are exempt from Boiler MACT, and natural gas is also very competitively priced compared to other fuels. In fact, natural gas currently costs about 40% less than oil per unit of energy (BTU). Many natural gas utilities are offering very attractive conversion packages that may cover much of the cost of converting. Some prospective Woodard & Curran gas conversion projects will have project paybacks less than one-year. Making the switch could save you money and time in the long run, reducing your fuel costs, lowering Green House Gas emissions up to 30% and avoiding Boiler MACT requirements.

If you would like help evaluating your compliance options, or think converting to natural gas might be a good option for you, give us a call. We have experts who can help you determine the best course of action for your specific situation.

Contributed by our Compliance team

For more information, contact Kelley Begin

Projects in these areas that include one acre or more of land disturbance activities such as clearing, grading, excavating, and stockpiling and that discharge to a water of the United States must obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with EPA, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and meeting many other requirements.

The new 2012 CGP replaces the expired 2008 CGP, and includes increased and new requirements, such as:

• NOI is now due 14 days prior to construction, instead of 7 days,
• More prescriptive Best Management Practices (e.g. erosion and sediment controls, deadlines for stabilization, pollution prevention, etc),
• Enhanced provisions to address water quality impairments, and 
• Detailed staff training requirements.

Compliance with this permit will require a substantially greater cost and effort. If your project is currently covered by the CGP, you are required to submit a NOI for coverage under the new permit by May 16, 2012, or terminate your coverage. If you are planning a new project, you will be required to obtain coverage under the new CGP. Please contact Woodard & Curran’s stormwater experts for assistance with obtaining coverage for your project. More information, including frequently asked questions (pdf), is available on EPA’s Web site.

Note: There is some good news! The 2012 CGP will not contain numeric effluent limits for turbidity. EPA previously issued a turbidity limit for large sites but removed that limit due to questions on accuracy of data.

Contributed by our Stormwater team

The survey shows a great deal of optimism with a tinge of uncertainty. It also gives indications of goals, market drivers, and challenges facing the industry. While the survey is certainly not a crystal ball, it does highlight key trends, uncover the drivers behind the trends, and give insight into what the industry is working on.

The first piece of information is the challenges the industry expects to face in 2012. The majority of respondents saw their top five challenges as:

• Food Safety (53% of respondents ranked this the top challenge or concern) 
• Cost Control (29.5%) 
• Inspections/Regulations (20.5%) 
• Automation (12.5%) 
• Sourcing and Materials (12.5%)

That food safety is the highest priority on the list for food and beverage manufacturers should come as no surprise. With growing consumer awareness, tighter governmental regulations, and competitive pressure, food safety is one aspect no company can afford to miss on. In 2011, one small cantaloupe farm in Colorado sparked a nationwide listeriosis outbreak, causing 15 deaths, the most lives lost by a U.S. food borne outbreak in nearly 15 years. In response, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is targeted at reforming food safety laws in our country. Woodard & Curran is equipped to provide preventative solutions for the industry such as inspection and compliance assistance, prevention-based controls, and response programs.

Another survey result was that a staggering 94.5% of the respondents said they expected their plant’s production to either increase or stay the same. This is good news for the industry, indicating that the economic strain felt in the last few years may have loosened a bit, opening the opportunity for more capital projects because increased production can equate to a need for updated processes and equipment.

Nearly half of the survey respondents (47.2%) said their company's capital budget was due for an increase in 2012 from the previous year. This echoes the sentiment that the food and beverage industry is poised to spend on production facilities.

When asked what portion of their facility is automated, 53.8% of respondents said sections of their production line were fully automatic. This was the highest number followed by 37.2% of packaging sections. Only 8% said their entire production line was automated. Perhaps the most interesting take away from this is the general lack of automation across a variety of food and beverage manufacturing facilities. This indicates that there is a substantial opportunity for automation upgrades.

Energy management is undeniably a huge part of any industry, and food and beverage is no exception. Whether it’s sustainable buildings, water efficiency, emissions reduction, or using alternative energy, energy management is interwoven with the industry. The majority of respondents mirrored this sentiment, with 76.1% indicating their company would be conducting some degree of energy management in 2012.

The largest portion of respondents who said they expected energy improvements indicated they were going to focus on taking steps towards energy conservation. A wide array of energy initiatives were noted in the survey including recycling energy through redirection systems, conducting energy audits, seeking alternate energy solutions such as co-generation, and installing solar panels.

While answers from a survey should not be considered definitive, it offers valuable insight. After analyzing the survey and the market conditions we can pull a few key thoughts out – food safety, increased production, and energy management are going to be large focus points for the industry this year. Understanding what drives food and beverage manufacturers and bridging the connections with outside influences such as consumer demand, governmental regulation, and economic factors will give the best possible insight to the trends of 2012.

Contributed by Lloyd Snyder, PE 
 

Why so soon?
We realize that Phase II Small MS4 Annual Reports submitted last May are far from your minds, but it’s more than halfway through Permit Year 9. Municipalities are required to continue implementing their Best Management Practices and Stormwater Management Programs. Unless EPA finalizes the new Small MS4 General Permits and authorizes communities to discharge under the permit before Spring 2012, it is very likely that a Year 9 Annual Report will be due to EPA and MassDEP. Click here for EPA’s most recent Small SM4 General Permit Update.

Now is a great time to check progress on your community’s planned Permit Year 9 stormwater activities. EPA is increasing its attention to municipal stormwater programs, as shown by their recent enforcement activities including a number of fines for late or missing Annual Reports. It is more important than ever to complete Annual Reports on time. In addition, as construction season winds down and municipal responsibilities are transitioning from outdoors to indoors, some local stormwater managers have an opportunity to catch up on paperwork and filing.

What should you do?  

1. Look at your 2011 (Year 8) Annual Report. Most reports are available on EPA's 2003 Permit Archives website. 
2. Review the Annual Report. What did your community promise to do this year? Are you on track? What have you completed and when? What's left to do?
3. Gather and organize paper records documenting all completed stormwater activities.
4. Make every effort to complete activities planned for Permit Year 9 by March 31, 2012 and add documentation to your files.

How can Woodard & Curran help?
If you have any questions about EPA’s Stormwater Program, General Permit Requirements, or want guidance on your local stormwater program, please contact us.

Contact us for more information.

No News Isn't Always Good News
While the permit continues to be delayed, EPA has stepped up their enforcement efforts. A number of Massachusetts communities have heard from EPA's enforcement arm. Specifically, EPA has:

• Issued fines for late or missing Annual Reports;
• Issued enforcement orders for targeted water quality issues related to the Small MS4 program; and
• Performed comprehensive local MS4 program audits.

Who will EPA target for Enforcement?
Outside of the cities and towns that submitted their Annual Reports late, EPA could turn their attention to any community. However, we believe that EPA will focus their limited enforcement resources on:

• Highly urbanized areas;
• Known water quality challenges (e.g., impaired water bodies, Total Maximum Daily Loads, other in-stream exceedances of MA Surface Water Quality Standards); and
• Known SSOs and other suspected Illicit Discharges.

What Can You Do?
Two things that every community should do right away are:

1. Organize Your Stormwater Records - For every task listed as completed on Annual Reports since 2003, there should be easy-to-access documentation. All program documentation should be organized by Permit Year and Minimum Control Measure (e.g., MCM #1 is Public Education, MCM #2 is Public Participation, et al.). EPA may be interested to see how you maintain stormwater records, so have your binder or file cabinet ready and presentable.
2. Know Your Program - EPA will expect that municipal staff (not your stormwater consultant) knows all the details of the Small MS4 stormwater program. If you are the target of an audit, you should expect EPA to ask very detailed questions; for example:
• How does your community receive input about its MS4 program? What is the biggest change that has happened because of public input on the stormwater program? 
• Where are catch basin and street sweepings disposed and how much material was disposed last year?
• How much salt is used per lane mile during de-icing?

Unfortunately, the "stormwater coordinator" in many cities and towns has changed at least once over the course of the last eight years. The person currently responsible for the Small MS4 program will still be responsible to know the details of the program since 2003.

How can Woodard & Curran help?
If EPA does contact you about performing a MS4 program audit, please contact us right away so we can help you prepare. Of the communities audited so far in Massachusetts, very few escaped an enforcement order, and many also received a fine. Being extremely organized and knowledgeable about all aspects of your local stormwater program is the best way you can limit your community's risk.

Contact us for more information. 

To keep the infrastructure we rely on from falling apart, we will need to invest more than $2.2 trillion over the next five years for repairs and improvements. Asking taxpayers to bear the entire cost is simply not feasible. Municipalities recognize this, and most are level-funding budgets either through no net increase in utility user fees or no net increase in taxes. So where will the money come from? Possibly from the private sector.

We know that there is private capital available, and finding a way to marry that with the immense need for investment in public infrastructure is an idea that has merit. We need to have numerous funding options in place to ensure that our infrastructure is properly maintained and updated and not have the cost fall solely on the backs of the public.

On March 15, 2011, a bipartisan-sponsored bill, BUILD Act, was introduced in the US Senate to create a federal bank with the sole purpose of investing in American infrastructure, focusing on transportation, water and energy. The idea of creating an infrastructure bank is not new, but the current proposal is and it reflects today’s budgetary constraints and the urgency of the nation's infrastructure needs.

The bank would be established with federal seed money of $10 billion, but would then become self-sustaining, relying on the private sector for investments while giving out loans and loan guarantees – not grants – for projects of national or regional significance and at least $100 million in size or for rural projects of $25 million or more. Some may say that this is similar to the current State Revolving Loan funds and ask why we don’t just add money to those programs. The important difference here is after the creation of the bank with federal seed money portion, no further investment of tax dollars would be required.

Municipal bonds will remain a critical source of infrastructure funding, but given the size of the infrastructure deficit we have to look at other sources of funding. This bill is one potential answer, and deserves to be made a higher priority by Congress because of its potential to have a large positive impact on the economy.

Contributed by Helen Gordon

There are two types of energy rating systems, asset ratings and operational ratings. Asset ratings evaluate a building’s performance based on the thermal and mechanical and electrical systems, ignoring occupant behavior. Operational ratings evaluate a building’s actual energy use by analyzing energy billing data. According to the DOER, asset rating systems allow for direct comparisons among similar buildings, which is more difficult in the case of operational ratings.

The energy ratings systems emerging in this country seek to encourage the move to more efficient buildings and building systems. Whether they will accomplish that is yet to be determined, but the next few years should paint a much clearer picture.

To read more about the DOER program, check out the Spring issue of our Directions newsletter.

On April 15, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft of the new Construction General Permit (CGP). This draft CGP will replace the existing CGP, and applies to construction activities in Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington D.C., and most territories and Indian country lands, that disturb one (1) or more acres of land, or will disturb less than one (1) acre, but is part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb one acre or more.

This new draft CGP includes substantially increased requirements, including:

• Enhanced provisions to address impaired and sensitive waters;
• Increased erosion and sediment control, stormwater pollution prevention plan and control requirements, and soil stabilization practices;
• A numeric turbidity limit for larger construction sites; and
• Natural buffer or alternative control requirements.

The public will have sixty (60) days for comment on the permit. EPA expects a final CGP in early 2012. A copy of the draft permit, appendices, and more information is available on EPA's website: EPA Draft CGP.

Compliance with this permit with require a substantially increased effort and cost. The new CGP is a draft right now, but the final permit will affect construction activities for years to come. Take time to read the draft and provide EPA with comments and questions.

Contributed by our Stormwater team

Here are three snapshots of recent EPA actions in Region 1 to address water bodies thought to be impaired primarily by stormwater, and the early indication of costs to comply.

Long Creek, Maine

Long Creek is an urban impaired stream with a watershed of approximately 3.5 square miles in and around South Portland, Maine. The watershed is comprised of approximately 30% impervious cover, which has led to an inability to achieve its designated water quality standards. EPA determined, and various studies have corroborated, that stormwater discharges from impervious surfaces equal to or greater than one acre were causing or contributing to water quality violations. This finding allowed EPA to exercise its Residual Designation Authority and require this category of dischargers to obtain NPDES permits. With this designation, approximately 90% of the impervious area in the Long Creek watershed is now under the permitting jurisdiction of the NPDES program. The Long Creek Watershed Management Plan (now a part of the general discharge permit in Long Creek) estimates the costs of the first phases of restoration to be close to $15 million or about $4.3 million per square mile. These costs will be shared by the regulated entities including municipal and state agencies.

Charles River, Massachusetts
In contrast to the relatively small Long Creek watershed, the Charles River drains a watershed area of 310 square miles. However, both watersheds share the similar characteristics of urbanized landscapes and the subsequent impairment largely because of polluted stormwater runoff. In exercising its Residual Designation Authority, EPA determined that stormwater discharges from property containing impervious surfaces equal to or greater than two acres cause or contribute to water quality violations and are therefore subject to NPDES stormwater permitting requirements. EPA has issued a draft NPDES General Permit for three towns in the Charles River Watershed, which would require all impervious surfaces of two or more acres to implement a comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and a Phosphorous Reduction Plan. Preliminary estimates of cost as developed by EPA in 2009, indicates that the structural management cost of regulated facilities within this watershed is between $60 and $90 million for the 48 square mile regulated watershed area or between $1.3 and $1.9 million per square mile.  These are only construction costs and do not include design, legal, or administrative costs of implementation.

Bartlett, Centennial, Englesby, Morehouse and Potash Brook Watersheds. Chittenden County, Vermont
On July 19, 2009, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation gave notice that it was exercising Residual Designation Authority for stormwater discharges to five watersheds in Chittenden County that fail to meet water quality standards, each of which has an EPA-approved TMDL. As was the case in the Long Creek and Charles River watersheds, the cause of impairment in Chittenden County was polluted stormwater runoff that resulted from urbanization and impervious surfaces. The Residual Designation applies to all stormwater discharges from impervious surfaces that are not covered by the MS4 General Permit or another NPDES permit. This is the broadest use of Residual Designation to date, as it applies to every contributor of stormwater, without a size threshold. In order to permit these dischargers, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources intends to issue a general stormwater permit for dischargers brought under NPDES permitting authority as a result of the designation. Preliminary estimates of compliance costs as reported by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources are approximately $45 million for the 11 square mile area or $4.12 million per square mile.

Implications for the rest of the country
These examples show that previously unregulated properties that discharge stormwater into impaired waterbodies can easily come within the scope of NPDES permitting requirements and at a significant new cost to private landowners, municipalities and state agencies. These New England developed watersheds are no different from thousands of urbanized watersheds across the country in terms of land cover or impervious cover, it is a reasonable expectation that retroactive and comprehensive stormwater compliance may cost between $2 and $4 million per square mile in developed areas in the first phases of implementation. Are we witnessing the next major phase of the Clean Water Act? Is this the future of watershed management in urbanized areas? Will this approach be effective? More on this topic soon.

Contributed by our Stormwater team

In December 2010, the EPA Office of Site Remediation Enforcement issued an internal memo to Regional Counsel, Enforcement Division Directors, Superfund National Policy Managers, and RCRA National Managers in all EPA regions. The memo included a fact sheet titled “The Benefits of Integrating Reuse to Achieve Enforcement and Environmental Protection Goals.”

The EPA is coaching internal staff on the benefits of reusing land resources at federally regulated cleanup sites with a list that sounds strikingly like Brownfields program benefits, including:

• Reduction of blight;
• Jobs creation and increased property values;
• Creation of open space; and
• Urban redevelopment and smart growth.

An additional ‘benefit’ promoted in the memo is more focused on value for the agency, and has the potential to hinder, rather than promote, reclamation of Superfund and RCRA sites. The fact sheet explains to staff that “EPA may have a windfall lien if an EPA response action increased a property’s fair market value.” The windfall lien is a vehicle under federal statute that allows EPA to recover additional funds via property lien against the increased value of a redeveloped property. This value would come directly off of the balance sheet of a redevelopment project, and is a serious disincentive for prospective developers.

It is exciting to think about the potential for reclamation and reuse of the thousands of cleanup sites regulated under federal oversight. The specter of cost recovery via windfall lien calls into question the value of encouragement to redevelop under EPA’s enforcement policy. It will be important to watch what additional policy changes may occur in the wake of this memo.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

Preventing pharmaceuticals from entering water supplies is a complex challenge, involving health care facilities, private citizens, and municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems.

The wastewater treatment processes municipalities have in place are not focused on removing pharmaceutical chemicals. Some studies have shown that municipal treatment systems do accomplish some level of removal, but with so many chemicals potential entering the treatment plant, it is extremely difficult to test for all of them. Altering the treatment processes in place across the country and the world to handle pharmaceutical chemicals would be a massive undertaking and the cost would be immense.

Many communities, organizations, and regulatory agencies have launched efforts to educate people about the dangers of flushing unused medicines down the drain and have organized take-back days where unwanted pharmaceuticals can be turned in for safe disposal. The largest initiative is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s "Take Back" campaign, which held its first collection day in September 2010 with more than 4,000 sites and nearly 3,000 state and local law enforcement agencies participating. Individual cities and towns are also running their own programs, either with support from an interested organization or agency, or on their own initiative.

Take-back programs and education are merely one step in solving the problem of pharmaceuticals in wastewater. Addressing the quantities of medications that pass through the human body will be a key component of the overall strategy, and one that requires further study in the coming years.

You can read more about pharmaceuticals in wastewater Winter 2010-11 issue of our Directions newsletter.

Contributed by Joe Shea

Closed landfills often offer the right characteristics for a solar installation: plenty of open space and good sun exposure. Many incentives have emerged to make developing solar power facilities an attractive and affordable option.

Building a solar facility on a closed landfill brings an underutilized land resource back into productive use, can provide low-cost renewable energy, and reduces a community’s carbon footprint. On the other hand, there are certainly important technical challenges to overcome when developing this type of facility. In particular, site stability and impacts to the landfill cap must be carefully considered.

Policy and funding support for siting solar installations on closed landfills is increasing. This includes initiatives from the EPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response, and financial incentives from many state governments that can offset a substantial portion of the capital costs of these projects.

This subject is covered in more depth in the Winter 2010-11 issue of our newsletter, Directions. Please take a look!

Contributed by Alan Benevides, PE, LSP 

• The Venetian Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, NV
• Adobe Systems Headquarters, San Jose, CA
• The Boston Children’s Museum, Boston, MA
• William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Center, Little Rock, AR
• The Bank of America Tower, New York, NY
• The local Dunkin Donuts, St. Petersburg, FL

They’re all high-performance, green buildings. They have joined the thousands that have achieved LEED Certification from the United State’s Green Building Council (USGBC).

LEED (short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification is awarded to buildings designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across the metrics that matter most: energy, water, CO2 emissions, indoor environmental quality, and resource conservation.

Every building that achieves the LEED Certification deserves recognition for choosing to build a high-performance building and for executing the planning, engineering, and construction of such a building. However, there is one case that deserves high praise for the same certification but for an altogether different reason.

Philips Arena in downtown Atlanta, GA is home to the city’s basketball and hockey teams, and serves as a highly regarded concert and event venue. It is also the first NBA or NHL arena to achieve the LEED Certification.

There have been lots of firsts in LEED’s history. Look at the list above – each of those buildings was itself a first of one kind or another. So what’s special about Philips? Is it just another in a long line of firsts?

Not exactly. Philips isn’t just the first multi-pro sports arena to be certified, it accomplished this as an existing facility, all while still functioning in normal capacity. This meant working around a full slate of basketball and hockey games, concerts, and events.

The facility focused on completing several projects in line with the USGBC rating system categories – sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.

Here is an abridged list of what Philips Arena accomplished to earn certification:

• Sustainable sites –a hardscape management plan that includes acute concrete pressure washing to increase reflectivity and contracting with local landscapers who follow composting practices.
• Water efficiency – high efficient fixtures, automatic faucets to cut down on water loss, whole-building metering, and irrigation limits.
• Energy and atmosphere – efficient retrofitting of the two main HVAC units, upgrading a centrifugal chiller with a variable frequency drive, and switching to higher efficiency fluorescent lamps.
• Materials and resources – sustainable purchasing policy including buying from local vendors and purchasing recycled materials when possible.
• Indoor environmental quality –altering office space layout to maximize efficiency and adding occupancy sensors to reduce wasted lighting energy.

Philips Arena’s commitment to achieving the LEED Certification by investing in itself and the city is a blueprint for other venues. It is the gold standard for the hundreds of multi-use sports and event arenas across the country.

The October 26, 2010 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald spells out the results of a recent poll: Australians consider the environment their number one concern. In their story “Environment our Big Concern, poll shows” this environment beat out immigration, public transit, and unemployment for the top spot among Australians.

According to Rasmussen poll data from September 2010, the top issues for Americans are:

While Australia’s unemployment rate is below the US average, it nevertheless has experienced the same recession and slow returns in economic growth as the US, so it would be unfair to say that their assignment of the environment over unemployment as the top issue is solely due to differences in economic conditions between the two countries. 

Australia’s population is more highly urbanized than the US (93% vs 77% in the US) and the Australians have fewer fresh water resources than the US. Perhaps these somehow create a greater longing for the great outdoors among Australians or a greater sense of the worth of their natural resources than in the US. 

The recently updated 5-year strategic plan by the US EPA identifies one of the five “cross-cutting” strategies for the agency as “expanding the conversation on environmentalism.” Maybe EPA would be wise to call the Australians and find out what they are talking about.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

Completion of the trail, for which Woodard & Curran provided civil engineering and stormwater design, and construction oversight represent a big step in the City’s goal to become more walkable. This is the theme of “new urbanism,” which holds that neighborhoods should accommodate many different uses and be defined and shaped by universally accessible public spaces.

New urbanism is increasingly informing the way urban spaces are developed or redeveloped. Neighborhood trails are one way for cities to put the principles of new urbanism to work. Trails help connect pedestrians and cyclists to city services, workplaces, and other necessities. The City of Portland, Portland Trails, The Trust for Public Land and the others involved in creating this trail have laid the foundation for another vibrant, livable neighborhood.

Another important feature of the Bayside Trail is its use of different types of porous paving technologies to address a challenging stormwater management situation. These paving surfaces, including brick pavers that allow water to infiltrate between them and pervious concrete, mitigate potential stormwater drainage issues. They also provide a test case for long-term maintenance and durability of porous paving systems.

When porous paving technologies were emerging, many people were concerned that they would require more maintenance or earlier replacement than conventional surfaces, therefore driving up their cost. Many of these surfaces actually reduce maintenance costs. For a city like Portland, ice is a major concern in the winter, but because water drains through the porous surfaces, ice is less likely to form, reducing the need for salting and sanding through the winter.

Bayside Trail is a great benefit for Portland and area residents, and a model of how progressive development principles can lay the groundwork for neighborhood development that is environmentally and economically sound.

Contributed by Barry Sheff, P.E.

The survey, titled “An Analysis of Issues Pertaining to Qualifications-Based Selection,” found that when the designers or engineers for a project are chosen through Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS), there are fewer change orders, less construction cost growth, and less schedule growth than the industry average.

Because QBS allows the project owner to select the design team based on experience and technical skill and then negotiate a price, survey respondents indicated that it led to stronger relationships between owners and designers. The research also found that projects using QBS tended to produce lower overall costs, likely because the design phase has a disproportionate impact on the long-term performance of the project, including factors like safety and energy efficiency.

As the United States continues to work its way out of the recession, project owners are all looking to control costs. Despite the obvious temptation to move toward low-bid procurement, QBS may well be the better – and cheaper – approach after all.

Contributed by Brent Bridges

Here are a few examples of communities of varying size using rate increases to generate revenue. These have all taken place in just the last 30 days:

Toccoa, GA – Service Population 24,960 – The city is looking to increase the average water and sewer bill by $1.58 a month for minimum-level users, such as single resident homes. Average users, who make up the bulk of the service population would see a hike of $2.58 a month. The largest increase of $5.78 a month would be reserved for high-volume users, a group generally made up of commercial entities. The rate hike would bring in over $336,000 for the City’s water and wastewater budget.

DeKalb County, GA – Population 670,000 – The County has voted to ratchet up rates 16% a year for the next four years. An average user who paid $51 a month in 2009 will now see their bill jump to $107 by the year 2014. The money generated from the increase will eventually help pay for the $1.79 billion upgrade to the County’s water system.

Suwanee, GA – Service Population 788 – The city is raising their rates to cover operating costs and recent improvements to the system. They expect to see a monthly jump of $7.87 for the average customer. In addition the city is implementing a standard 10% rate increase each year for the next three years.

Centerville, GA – Service Population 7,714 – There is a pending 10% water rate increase in store for the city. This increase will simply allow the city to “break even” in water and sewer services according to Councilman Ed Tucker.

Cartersville, GA – Service Population 24,830 – The city is considering a 4.5% rate increase in water and sewer rates to try and cover the costs of operation and maintenance of the city’s water system.

St. Mary’s, GA – Service Population 17,090 - originally had scheduled to increase water rates by 65% but voted to use sales tax income and reserve funds to limit the increase to only 35%. The City has decided to place a base fee of $20 on multi-family dwellings. The revenue from the increase will go towards maintenance of the water system.

In a survey conducted by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), it was reported that 23% of systems do not keep a list of assets of their system and only 47% have an estimate of their system’s life expectancy. Although certainly not the only factor in what seems to be a statewide rash of rate hikes, a connection can be drawn between rising rates and undermanaged utility systems.

Every water and wastewater system eventually has a breakdown. Repair, replacement, and improvement are necessary parts of growth, and the residents being served by these systems do have a responsibility to help pay for upkeep. But many communities are raising rates in response to the cost of doing business when they should have been planning for these expenses all along.

As a planning tool, rate studies allow cities to be proactive when it comes time to deal with rate setting. The process can be iterative and can involve public input. These types of studies build equity throughout the system and customer base, aiming to have each user pay their fair share while ensuring the generated revenue has a predetermined final destination.

“Water rate increases are never easy, especially in these stressful economic times, but cities have to run financially efficient,” said Kendall Smith, City Manager in Dallas, GA. “Rate studies allow you to take the data collected and realize your goals. Adjustments then are fair not only to the present and future needs of the city but to the citizens as well.”

Simply adding an extra percent to a customer’s bill when a system needs new pipes or equipment is not the answer. Community leaders must understand where their system is right now to be able to set appropriate rates to pay for future needs.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

A recent news story highlighted the impact to project schedule and cost due to improper disposal of contaminated soil. In this case, a retailer purchased a site in 2005 to build a new store. Unfortunately, the store opening has been delayed several years because contamination in site soils was more extensive than originally identified during due diligence. As a result, soil from grading activities that was previously not identified as contaminated was improperly disposed off-site and the owner of the off-site location subsequently found that the soil was contaminated and sought damages from the retailer. After the contamination was discovered, about 17,500 cubic yards of soil needed to be relocated. At the end of the day, grading of the site resulted in a $14M lawsuit.

New development starts, work on existing sites, grading, refits to parking lots, placement of new buildings or expansions, or site work to comply with stormwater requirements all require management of soil. Due to the nature of this work, soil is displaced to allow for site grading, construction of footings, or installation of utilities and conveyances. As the news story above highlights, the potential for environmental liability exists when handling these soils.

Soil excavation and disposal performed in conjunction with legally mandated environmental cleanup used to be the only obvious instance where regulated handling and off-site disposal of soil was needed. With the tightening of waste handling regulations in many states and changes in the standard of practice that have occurred over the last decade, removing soil from your site for any purpose now represents one of your biggest environmental liabilities.

There are some simple but important things you should do to manage this liability:

Have a soil management plan that clearly communicates the requirements for disturbing, reusing, and disposing of soil. This plan will provide for consistency of soil handling practices within your project teams. Soil management should be included in bids and specifications to contractors to assure that pricing and disposal methods are consistent with your liability management goals.

Consider soil management costs early in project planning. Costs for soil disposal that were unanticipated just because the work was not being performed strictly for site cleanup can cause significant overruns. Avoid this by carrying a line item for soil management costs on every project that breaks ground. 

Be intentional about soil management. In many cases, you may have no choice but to take soil off-site, but in other circumstances, balancing cut and fill may allow for selective reuse of soils on the site. Connect the engineering design work and environmental planning early in the design process to determine the best way to minimize soil handling costs.

Understand your legal obligations and liabilities. Each state will have its own set of requirements for soil handling and disposal. When you are shipping soil across state lines, you will need to comply with requirements in both states. Each receiving facility will have its own requirements, established through permit or by regulation. When considering disposal options, remember that if you own the soil, you remain in the chain of liability. Make sure you work with your attorney and consultant to understand what will be required and prudent.

Whether you are planning a new development, or just operating an existing property, soil management represents an important liability that you must manage when breaking ground. With proper planning, budgeting and communication, you can control this liability and avoid unexpected costs.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

Here at Woodard & Curran, we climbed 28 spots on ENR’s list of the Top 500 Design Firms, ranking 113 after coming in at 141 in 2009. This put us 82nd among the top 100 “pure design” firms, which includes only firms where a majority of revenue is engineering and design work. Both rankings are the highest ever for Woodard & Curran. And while industry-wide domestic revenue dropped 13%, or about $9 billion, for the industry, Woodard & Curran grew around 7% last year.

Why this difference? One reason is clear: our people have always understood that success in our industry is about exceeding client expectations. The fact that we are succeeding in a very difficult economic environment is because of the effort and dedication our people show to their clients on every single project, and that makes a big difference in good times and in bad.

Contributed by Doug McKeown

One of the most public problems in Georgia will evidently be solved behind closed doors. By now, we’re all aware of Georgia’s lengthy drought and the state’s unpreparedness. A federal court has mandated that Georgia, Florida, and Alabama come to a water sharing agreement by 2012 or have the supply from Lake Lanier cut substantially. The lake has recovered from the drought thanks to heavy rains but the pending court mandate looms large.

The three states have filed a joint motion to keep their negotiations secret to, according to the motion, “encourage the open exchange of information and proposals necessary to address the issues and discourage the improper dissemination of the same.” It isn’t uncommon to have secrecy during settlement talks. Bert Brantley, a spokesman for Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue said the request “is yet another proof point that all three states are committed to working together to reach a tri-state water deal.”

While it is undoubtedly a good sign to see the three sides working together to avoid another water resource crisis, some wonder why discussions must be confidential. Sally Bethea, executive director for the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, a Georgia-based water protection organization, asked, “Is this confidentiality arrangement really something just to serve as cover for political leaders?” She added that “the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper organization think(s) secrecy is not in the best interest of all the people in the three states who rely on these river systems.”

If the three states cannot come to an agreement, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, operator of Lake Lanier, will lower water availability to levels last seen 40 years ago. In forty years, the Lanier-dependent metro-Atlanta area has grown by three million people and by countless more living in the Lanier–fed Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola river basins.

Obviously, scaling limits back to the limits set by the federal mandate would spell very big trouble for Georgia and its two neighbors. The poor water resources planning seeds sown by Georgia officials is starting to bear rotten fruit. Sometimes, it’s hard to heed advice to invest for the future when there are so many problems in the present. But rest assured that Georgia would gladly go back in time and map out a plan to avoid their current situation.

It’s always difficult to make budget decisions, especially in today’s tough economic times. It’s easy to spend money on immediate, obvious fixes. Water resource planning is not a quick fix. It doesn’t offer the immediate, tangible results that some of the obvious, at-the-ready fixes might. But looking at the plight that Georgia is facing, it’s obvious that a small investment a few years ago could have saved millions.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

For a project applying LID techniques, each option should be evaluated based on its suitability for the site, performance, overall cost, and the time and cost of maintenance. This post describes each option and how it could work for a site.

Porous pavement is a permeable pavement constructed on top of a stone reservoir to allow water to naturally filter and infiltrate the ground. This technique works well for a site that has low usage levels with a slope of less than 5%. Due to the nature of the pavement, the bedrock should be more than four feet below the base of the system, the seasonal high water table more than three feet, and the site should be protected from wind-blown sediments.

Maintenance for porous pavement is more costly and requires more time than other LID options. Vacuum sweeping and or pressure washing is recommended along with the use of environmentally benign deicers in lieu of salt, which can damage the pavement. Inspections to check for deterioration are recommended on a monthly basis and after storm events to check functionality.

On the other hand, porous pavement reduces the amount of stormwater infrastructure and the need for plowing and salting and increases groundwater recharge. But be aware that porous pavement systems have a lower load-bearing capacity than traditional pavement systems.
 
Bio-retention areas mimic natural landscapes to filter stormwater using soils and vegetation in shallow landscaped depressions. Bio-retention ponds or basins are used for small sub-drainage areas, generally less than five acres, with a seasonal high water table more than two feet from the pond invert. The site slope should be less than 20% for best results. Maintenance should be done routinely on landscaped areas surrounding the ponds, along with removal of accumulated debris and sediment. Inspections should be done to observe the health of the plants for system functionality.

Bio-retention ponds provide pollutant treatment, increase groundwater recharge for unlined systems, and reduce urban heat effects. Sites with a steep slope or limited space should perform adequate due diligence to see if bio-retentions the best option.
 
Underground infiltration systems capture stormwater and slowly allow it to infiltrate the ground. These systems need to meet more site requirements than the other two LID techniques. Distance from on-site sewage disposal systems, community and private wells, property lines, structures, and surface water bodies all need to be considered. Maintenance includes bi-annual inspection of pretreatment devices and chambers, cleaning of pretreatment devices as necessary, and removal of accumulated sediment over three inches.

Underground infiltration increases groundwater recharge and allows for flexibility in the system location and configuration to best suit the application. The system restricts accessibility for maintenance, requires a piping system infrastructure, and requires pretreatment to minimize maintenance; all things to consider before choosing underground infiltration.

Every project is different and all alternatives should be evaluated based on site needs and design. Costs range based on the project, but for large scale projects porous pavement tends to have the lowest capital expense followed by bio-retention ponds then underground infiltration.

Contributed by Janice Greenwood of Woodard & Curran's Rhode Island office

In the past few weeks Atlanta and the surrounding area has experienced torrential downpours, causing flooding, wastewater overflows, and general misery for drivers everywhere. But there is a silver lining in all the rain: Lake Lanier, the epicenter of water conservation friction, has been nearly replenished to normal levels. At the time of this entry, Lanier is a mere foot and a half below normal levels. To put that number in perspective, Lanier was hovering around 20 feet below normal in 2008. Today, Lanier is clearing almost seven and half million gallons a day into the lake, a far cry from that same time in 2008 when the lake was losing over three million gallons a day. Clearly, the metro area was granted the proverbial “do-over” with the drought. Awareness, education, and conservation, mixed with the incredible rainfall, have produced tangible results for the lake and the surrounding area. But has the culture of the area changed enough to continue this way of living in order to avoid another potentially catastrophic drought?

From the years 2000-2006, the metro area gained 890,000 residents. State officials were not prepared from a water resources perspective to support that kind of growth. The drought, then, was a natural occurrence combined with a man-made crisis. It was a recipe of too many people mixed with not enough planning, infrastructure, or conservation mandates. Here are some statistics (courtesy of Conserve Water Georgia) that will help set stage for understanding how a conservation culture change in Atlanta must occur to survive another drought:

• Population projection for the metro Atlanta area by 2025: 7,308,508
• Current population for the metro Atlanta area: 5,278,904
• Gallons-per-day usage by average Georgia resident: 100 gallons
• Average number of years between 3-year-long droughts: 40 years

So, what can we draw from these numbers? With an influx of two million people in the next 16 years there will be approximately 200 million more gallons of water used per day. A population boom similar to that of earlier in the decade paired with another drought could spell disaster. The metro area must learn from the recent drought emergency and cultivate conservation.

Some techniques could include extending the daytime watering recommendations to a ban on all daytime watering. According to Sally Bethea, Executive Director for the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, cutting out all unnecessary daytime watering could help save up to 15 percent of lost water per day. Another strategy could include having the state match a portion of grants given to metro area communities investing in water efficiency projects, such as fixing outdated equipment or installing monitoring systems.

Investing in the area’s water future is an investment in the area as a whole. Like many preventable problems, Atlanta’s water issues will need to be confronted head on, and solutions need to be made as soon as possible. The growth of the area is not slowing down, and there aren’t any additional water sources. Conservation must become a way of life in Atlanta, not a reaction to an emergency.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

Regulators and the scientific community have shifted their focus from drinking water issues to subsurface impacts on indoor air quality. This is due to both the high potential for exposure to indoor air (time spent indoors and lack of alternate air sources and because science suggests the way we previously evaluated indoor air concerns is flawed) and that the transport and toxicity of some solvents are even higher than previously suspected. The result: a spotlight on the potential for contamination to move from soil and groundwater beneath buildings to indoor air, or vapor intrusion, potentially placing occupants at risk. In the wake of these changes, new sampling methods, new phases of assessment, new agency scrutiny, and new litigation by tenants and owners have become the norm.

The best defense is a good offense in dealing with this issue. Here are a few recommended "keys to the game".

Put liability control in your plan. Evaluate the potential for this issue to exist when contemplating a purchase or planning your remedial strategy. If you have previously completed remediation and/or closed your site, determine whether this liability may need to be addressed before selling, leasing, or redeveloping.
 
Figure it out now. If you are carrying out new construction and have a known source of contamination in the area of the planned building, conduct focused evaluation right where the building will go. If this evaluation shows a risk, design engineering controls into the construction. Fixing this problem after the building is done will be much more expensive than addressing it up front.
 
Trust, but verify. Engineering controls are a great design element, but somewhere down the line someone is going to ask whether they are working. Your design plan needs to include engineering oversight during installation and performance testing after installation. The standard of practice is moving toward installing means by which the physical performance of the system can be evaluated, rather than conducting indoor air testing. Why? Indoor air testing is expensive, may need to be conducted several times, can cause alarm among building occupants, and, particularly with new construction, may measure other sources of contaminants to indoor air.

Hire smart. Not all consultants or attorneys have experience dealing with vapor intrusion. In light of the fact that differences exist in standards of practice and regulations, make sure you have the right team to solve the problem. Having someone on board who can conduct the human health risk evaluation and knows the latest standards and methods will be critical to overcoming the issue.

Get focused. This is not a distraction or regulatory "flavor of the month" – it is here to stay. No one will be able to argue against protecting the health of the people that live, work or shop inside your building. Address this early in your existing portfolio and in future transactions.

Engage a qualified consultant right away if you are faced with this problem. Indoor air impacts may be expensive to litigate and this will be particularly true if you are not proactive in addressing this new regulatory concern, or if you address it improperly.

Please contact Woodard & Curran if you have any questions on this topic.

Contributed by Lisa Campe, MPH, LSP, Vice President

A city like Atlanta must have in place a tangible water sustainability strategy in order to survive. This strategy includes policies on water use and reuse, the technology and processes used to treat and distribute water, and creating awareness and responsibility amongst decision-makers and consumers alike.

In response to a well publicized drought, Atlanta has used all three approaches to create a relatively fast set of solutions to the dwindling water supply. Residential demand makes up 56% of the water use in Atlanta and of that nearly 20% is used for outdoor watering. Seeing this as a huge drain on the water supply, the City and surrounding areas instituted strict water restrictions and increased rates. This action aided in curbing wasteful water use and led to public awareness and media coverage surrounding the drought. Communities were vigilant in complying with water conservation efforts, even after some restrictions were relaxed.

The technology and creative problem-solving employed to help during the drought ranged from the expertise of federal and state decision makers and engineers all the way down to local residents exchanging older, more wasteful fixtures with newer, low-flow models. Residents even received rebates for their exchange.

Atlanta has also looked to other cities’ sustainable water visions for inspiration. In the 1980’s, Boston instituted a program of leak repair, new water meters, and water audits. The city now uses less water than it did in the year 1911. Of course, these changes come at a cost: Boston has spent $40 million on the effort. However, that investment will save the city around $500 million in long-term water loss, supply costs, and stabilized rates.

Obviously, an investment of tens of millions of dollars is a large sum. There are risks associated with any investment. But with proper planning, strategy, and commitment, the risks can be mitigated or even eliminated. And the returns on such an investment can be as large as the ones realized by Boston.

The sustainability dream is not going to happen overnight. However, if Atlanta learns from the seriousness of the drought, sticks with conservation strategies, and pays attention to cities who have paved the way, it can ensure a sustainable water supply.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

Cleanups for the majority of environmentally impacted sites will now be overseen by LSRPs. Instead of awaiting direct approvals by the NJDEP, licensed consultants will plan and direct the cleanup needed to comply with environmental laws, and to develop, maintain, or sell the property.

Standards will still be set by the NJDEP, which will conduct audits on 10% of all submissions while maintaining the management over a significant number of challenging cases, as necessary. To perform remediation work in New Jersey, consultants, engineers, and other site remediation professionals must be licensed as an LSRP. LSRPs will have the authority to take a case from start to finish and issue a response action outcome.

Woodard & Curran’s Duff Collins, P.G., Dave MacDonald, P.E., and Michael van der Heijden were closely involved in the development of New Jersey’s LSRP program, providing input to development of the bill and program standards, and testifying before the New Jersey Senate.

This program is a big step forward in getting the backlog of contaminated properties in New Jersey cleaned up and put to beneficial use.

Contributed by Michael van der Heijden

The City of Atlanta, GA is at an environmental crossroads unlike anything it has seen before. The issues it faces are unusual in their severity, but not uncommon across the country, and Atlanta's proactive approach is a useful example. A drought has ravaged the water supply, tornados have ripped through towns and smog and pollution are at an all time high. According to the American Lung Association, Atlanta ranks sixth in America’s Most Polluted Cities, based on Year-Round Particle Pollution. The city’s two primary water sources, Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River, have fallen victim to major environmental disasters including low-water levels, over-use, and pollution. All, however, is not lost. The City, with backing from local, state and federal officials, has taken action to create an environmental initiative aimed at helping to sooth the area’s water woes.

The Clean Water Campaign is a community-based program targeted at educating the public on the sources of water pollution and the effects of those pollutants on Atlanta’s water supply, ecosystems, and general quality of life. Started in 2001, the initiative strives to convey facts paired with tangible effects. For instance, more than 1,000 stream miles in the metro-Atlanta area are non-compliant with state water quality standards. This type of education is especially important, as almost 98% of the City’s water supply comes from surface water origins.

The Clean Water Campaign conducts no-cost public workshops with topics ranging from rain gardens to composting to stormwater basics. The campaign boasts an easy to follow “Top 10 Things I Can Do” section for those interested in helping solve Atlanta’s water issues.

Interesting facts from The Clean Water Campaign:

• The highest concentration of pesticides in metro Atlanta’s rivers and streams are found during the month of May. This is attributed to the coming of springtime and the start of growing season.
• More than 800 of Georgia’s waterways already fail federal safety regulation for toxic chemicals and cancer-causing agents. Officials statewide blame runoff from parking lots, roofs, streets, and new development for the dangers.
• Only 14% of the 70,150 total stream and river miles in Georgia are monitored for water quality standards. Of that number, nearly 60% do not meet those standards.
• Only 55% of the 70,150 total stream and river miles in Georgia support a full range of aquatic life. Nearly 16% support no aquatic life at all.

It’s true that Atlanta’s water troubles are at an all-time high. But times of crisis also yield the best solutions. As the water supply decreases, public awareness increases and government actions start to churn. Initiatives such as The Clean Water Campaign are excellent examples of the power of a partnership between local and state officials and the people who elect them. Atlanta’s water issues are far from over, but the City has a public armed with knowledge and a government determined to change things, and that is a recipe for success.

Contributed by Brent Bridges and the Southeast Municipal Market Team

For 190 years this mapmaking mistake went on without much consequence. However, in early 2008, Georgia began to experience one of the worst droughts in our nation’s history. Lake Lanier, located about an hour and a half outside of Atlanta, is the city’s main water supply. In 2007, the lake hit record low water levels and so began the countdown until Atlanta ran out of water. Georgian government officials, including Governor Sonny Purdue, needed to act fast to preserve the flow of water for the almost 6 million people metro area. Eyes turned to the Georgia-Tennessee border and the forgotten surveying error that just happened to run directly through the Tennessee River.

Flush with billions of gallons of water, the Tennessee River would be able to supply the Atlanta area with water for a very long time. Georgian lawmakers envisioned pipes running from their reclaimed riparian rights and furnishing the parched populous to the south with fresh water. The land, however, belongs to Tennessee, and has for almost 200 years. There is no denying from either side that the lines of ownership were incorrectly drawn, and Georgia has protested this fact in years past, but never seeking court assistance. Now, we could see this dispute end up in the Supreme Court.

Lawmakers from both states have begun a war of attrition, Georgia claiming stakes and Tennessee not budging an inch. Thrown into the mix is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency with no allegiance to either state. Georgia is demanding the water to alleviate their water problems. Tennessee is recommending devoting time, effort and tax dollars to conserving water and restricting population growth.

Piping water to Atlanta would be probably the largest public works project in the history of the Southeast, with experts putting the price tag in the neighborhood of $200 billion. It would take an agreement or court injunction to give or sell the land to Georgia. Even then, a separate deal would need to be worked out with the Tennessee Valley Authority in order to remove even an ounce of water from the river. On top of all of this, there is a Tennessee state law that bans moving any river water out of state.

Tennessee points to Georgia’s poor planning, including building a million-gallon mountain of artificial snow and several outdoor theme and water parks. They also point to Atlanta’s enormous and seemingly unstoppable growth and Georgia’s historical wasteful irrigation of cotton farms.

Georgia, on the other hand, sees their rightful ownership of part of the Tennessee River as a possible solution to the state’s largest ecological crisis ever.

Normally, Georgia and Tennessee fight over whose football team is better. Today, the fight is undeniably more serious. While the litigation has been tabled, it could still end up in federal court. Either way, water is running out and Atlanta is growing by the minute. The year 1818 was an important year in history, but no one thought its most significant event wouldn’t have an effect until 190 years later.

Contributed by Brent Bridges 

The schools attended were: Cornell University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, the University of Connecticut, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, the University of New Hampshire, Bristol Community College, the University of Rhode Island, and the University of Maine. At these schools, we have often met well-qualified intern and entry-level job candidates in the specialties that we seek to hire including chemical, industrial, manufacturing, civil, environmental, electrical engineering, and other sciences and technologies. 

Whenever possible, Woodard & Curran sends employees back to their alma maters to represent the firm. This gives the students and our representatives a shared experience, and leads to better connections.

Once we’re back from the career event, we review all resumes we collected, and match them up with appropriate job openings as they are available. These events are an excellent way for us to find interns and new employees who are focused on building a career in engineering, science, or operations, and for us to help students understand what this kind of career might be like.

Thanks to all the colleges and universities that hosted events this year. We are excited for another round of career events next fall!  For more information of current job openings, please visit our Career Center.

Contributed by our HR Team

RGGI imposes an emissions cap on fossil fuel-fired electric power plants 25 megawatts or greater in size, operating in ten northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). These power plants (about 225 in total) are responsible for more than 25% of emissions in the region.

The system sets a stabilization target of 188 million tons of CO₂ annually for 2009-2014, then imposes annual reductions of 2.5% per year through 2018. The result is a 10% reduction in emissions over 2009 levels by 2018. Companies subject to the regulations will be able to purchase allowances to account for their emissions at the end of each 3-year compliance period.

These allowances may be purchased either through the quarterly auction process or via the secondary market. RGGI is unique in that it requires the majority of allowances to be auctioned rather than being given away to emitting entities from the governing agency. In contrast, the first phase of the European Union Emissions Trading Program was criticized for giving away too many allowances and thus lowering the value of the carbon traded.

The results of RGGI’s first auction indicated a strong demand for the allowances, with 59 participants (ranging from the energy, financial, and environmental sectors) placing bids for four times the available supply. Since only 6 of the 10 states participated, the 12.6 million allowances which were auctioned represented only 45% of what bidders can expect to purchase in future auctions.

While details were not released regarding who purchased the allowances, Potomac Economics (RGGI’s independent market monitor) noted that regulated entities or their affiliates purchased most of the allowances. The clearing price was $3.07 per allowance, yielding $38,575,783 in proceeds which will be distributed to the participating states (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont) in accordance to their share of regional emissions allowances. These revenues will be used to promote a shift toward a clean energy economy in the region, by supporting investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

For example, in Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick is directing the state’s $13.3 million share of revenues toward helping municipalities and individuals fight high winter energy costs in 2008-2009. As specified in the Green Communities Act, signed this past July, all RGGI proceeds will go to the Green Communities program ($5 million from this round), to support other energy efficiency and demand response programs ($3.5 million for utility-administered programs and $4.3 million for additional efforts this winter), and to reimburse the state for administrative costs associated with the cap-and-trade program ($500,000). The Green Communities program will provide grants and technical assistance to communities for efficiency and renewable energy efforts.

By establishing a price on carbon, RGGI will create a market signal to power generators, forcing them to incorporate the compliance cost of GHG emissions into their balance sheets, and deterring further investment in fossil-fuel intensive technologies. While costs may be carried over to the consumer through price increases, the revenues from auctions are designed to alleviate the burden on end-users through energy efficiency and/or alternative generation approaches.

The clearing price for allowances during this first auction may not, however, be indicative of future prices for several reasons. As mentioned earlier, this auction represented less than half of the full pool of allowances since some states were not ready to participate. Also, since RGGI is based on 3-year compliance periods, and the first few years are dedicated to stabilizing rather than cutting emissions, allowance prices may be lower at the beginning of the program, increasing as the cap gets tighter.

Some have criticized the program for setting the cap too high, which would suggest that allowance prices would further decrease due to lack of demand. Participating states do have the ability to alter the cap after the first compliance period, so there may be means to address price volatility as the program evolves. Regardless of what happens with allowance pricing, RGGI will provide much needed insight into the cap-and-trade process and will help to inform future efforts to develop an effective Federal carbon trading program.

Contributed by the Sustainability Services Team

With the help of past interns, and Woodard & Curran University of Maine graduates, we got the word out to students via posters, emails, online student profile announcement s, the career center, and University professors. This led to our highest attendance ever, with 67 students and a number of faculty members at the event!

The evening began with a 30 minute panel discussion. Students submitted questions ahead of time, and the panel was hand-selected in order to best address the questions.  After a couple of rounds, the floor was opened for questions from the audience. A lot of the questions revolved around what advice could be given to students to prepare them for life in the consulting world.

After the Panel Discussion, students and faculty moved into a reception area where they were able to enjoy appetizers and mingle with Woodard & Curran employees that were on hand. We provided information about our business, our internships, and our hiring process and open positions 

During the reception, speeches were given by Patty Counihan, Director of Career Services, Chet Rock, Associate Dean of Engineering, and Todd Saucier, Executive Director of the Alumni Association. Frank Woodard and Al Curran presented a $10,000 check to the Engineering Department as part of our ongoing effort to support the program.

Today, we have are proud to have a total of 56 UMaine Grads working at Woodard & Curran, not only in our Maine offices, but our New Hampshire, Dedham, MA, and Atlanta, GA offices as well.

Contributed by our HR Team

If your facililty was covered under the EPA MSGP 2000, or if you began discharging stormwater associated with industrial activity after the expiration of the MSGP 2000, you must update your stormwater pollution prevention plan, begin implementing your updated plan, and submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under the MSGP by January 5, 2009.

There have been several changes to the permit requirements compared with the MSGP 2000. Here are some of the key differences:

• An electronic system will be established for submittal of Notices of Intent (NOI), location of receiving waters, and reporting monitoring data.
• Changes to the information required in NOIs to help EPA determine eligibility and whether additional water quality-based requirements are necessary, and to enable EPA to inform the operator of its specific monitoring requirements.
• New, specific water quality-based effluent limit requirements applicable to impaired waters and State and Tribal antidegradation policies.
• Modifications regarding steps that must be followed to properly certify eligibility under endangered and threatened species and critical habitat protection requirements. 
• Certain benchmark monitoring levels have been revised to provide greater protection to listed endangered or threatened species.
• Adjusted benchmarks for six hardness-dependent metals (i.e., silver, cadmium, lead, nickel, copper, and zinc) so that the benchmark concentrations reflect site-specific hardness levels. For some sectors, the hardness of the receiving water will need to be determined in order to determine the applicable benchmark value.
• Considerably more attention is devoted to corrective actions required of permittees.
• Significant changes were made to the monitoring provisions. Facilities must determine whether their stormwater discharges to an impaired water, and if any approved TMDLs (total maximum daily loads) have been established. If so, additional monitoring may be required.  This will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis and documented in the facility's stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
• An annual report must now be submitted to EPA that includes the findings from the annual comprehensive site inspection report and a report detailing any conditions triggering corrective action and the status of those actions taken in response.
• Additional changes were made to individual industrial sectors covered under the permit.

The conditional exclusion for facilities that certify "no exposure" of industrial activities to stormwater is still available under the re-issued MSGP. No significant changes to this provision were made.

Because the changes above will require some effort to address, we suggest that facilities begin preparing NOIs and updating SWPPPs soon. See EPA's page on the MSGP for more information and please contact us if you have any questions regarding compliance with the new requirements.

Contributed by Bob Rafferty, PE and our Stormwater Services team

Most schools (or businesses, government agencies, etc) undertaking a first GHG inventory discover that it is difficult to find 100% of the data they set out to collect because records are often incomplete or inaccessible. Fortunately, the process of collecting the data makes these gaps abundantly clear and offers an opportunity to improve record-keeping procedures (or implement them where they don’t exist).

Good record-keeping policies, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, will make it much easier to conduct future GHG inventories and measure the success of GHG reduction programs. Without such procedures, even the most well-intentioned programs can falter.

Obviously, a lot of hard work is behind this achievement: good work procedures; a well coordinated and experienced staff; site-specific training; and management support and dedication. In addition, a major factor in the success of their safety program lies in the commitment of the employees, and the pride they take in themselves and their workplace. The employees are passionate about their workplace, and they are passionate about improving their own health and safety environment.

One of the main building blocks of any successful safety program is strong employee involvement. If management engages employees in the development and implementation of the safety program – through soliciting suggestions, inclusion in decision-making, training, etc. – then employees will feel ownership in the program and a sense of personal responsibility to see it succeed.

Contributed by our Health & Safety Team

During the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, we attended over 30 career-oriented events from the East coast, to the Mid-West, to the Southeast. More than 60 Woodard & Curran employees and interns attended these events in the hopes of meeting students in the fields of Chemical, Industrial, Manufacturing, Civil, Environmental, and Electrical Engineering as well as other sciences and specialties. From the many students we met and interviewed, we hired 15 interns and entry level employees for 2008.

In the Fall of 2008, we plan on attending eight campus events with the hopes of finding more great hires and interns in engineering, environmental science, and natural resource disciplines. Visit our Campus Events page to find out what schools we'll be visiting, or head to the Career Center to search job opportunities.

Contributed by our HR Team

As Dr. Meredith Belbin has written, a team is a group with “a tendency to behave, contribute, and interrelate with others in a particular way.” This is a broad but very useful definition.

The patterns of behavior and characteristics of individuals on a team, in relation to one another, are crucial components of team building. Effective team building results from the exploration and practice of self awareness and self knowledge of the team and its individual members, and their ability to adjust to external pressures and influences.

At Woodard & Curran, we have many “teams”, including but not limited to project teams, client teams, sports teams, and traditional specialty service teams like Marketing or Accounting.

A successful team may look different to different people. The successful client team may be made up of a group of results-driven individuals, who are independent in their tasks and actions but measure results and progress as a group. The successful project team is likely made up of people with a wide range of personalities, skills, and tenure, with a team leader (project manager) measuring and directing group success.

No matter the look and feel of the team, Suzanne Willis Zoglio, Ph.D., writes that “to compete effectively, leaders must fashion a network of skilled employees who support each other in the achievement of corporate goals and the delivery of seamless service.” That mutual support is what we aim for in every team at Woodard & Curran, from the smallest project to the largest service line, and most importantly in the firm as a whole.

So here’s to the team – the forming, the evolving, and the high achieving. They all have a place in our organization, as we grow, develop, and evolve ourselves.

Contributed by our HR Team

The article that accompanies the list talks about the changing markets for environmental services, noting that international work appears to be on the rise for U.S. firms. Interestingly, despite the economic climate, “wet infrastructure” work (e.g., water and wastewater work) saw significant growth this year and is seen as an area of opportunity. Another area seen as a growing opportunity is water resources management. More and more, communities and companies are trying to plan for the future and be proactive about how they use resources.

This year, we had 15 interns from 7 of our offices gather at our office in Portland, ME for a day of talks, panels, and discussions on a multitude of topics.  The agenda included:

• Doug McKeown, CEO, welcomed the interns and spoke about the opportunities at Woodard & Curran to follow either a technical track or a business track, or to pursue both.
• Helen Gordon, Vice President and Sr. Project Manager, shared her experience with Northeastern Co-op and what it is like working as a woman engineer in a predominantly male profession.
• Guy Vallaincourt, President, talked about the different types of career you can pursue with an engineering or science degree, including those in industry, government, and consulting.
• Tom Francoeur, Sr. Vice President and head of our Consulting Business, spoke about Woodard & Curran’s culture, and what makes us different from other firms.

Other highlights included:

• A panel of employees with one to eight years of experience who answered questions and discussed their internship experiences.
• Break-out sessions for mentors and interns to discuss what is and isn’t working for them.
• And of course, the ice cream truck! There’s nothing quite like a creamsicle to make people comfortable.

All and all it was a successful and informative event for both interns and mentors that will help us improve our internship program. We look forward to continuing this tradition next summer!

Contributed by our HR Team

While some research suggests possible impacts to aquatic life exposed to these compounds, no effects on human health have been detected at this time. Nevertheless, the issue could be significant for the entire water industry if regulations and technology standards arise out of a perception that a problem exists, even if presumptions of potential impacts are not supported by solid scientific evidence.

When it comes to testing water samples for various compounds, as Christian Daughton, chief of the environmental chemicals branch of EPA’s Office of Research and Development in Las Vegas has said, “what you find depends on what you’re looking for... Those chemicals not targeted will elude detection.” Compounds are being found in groundwater, surface water intakes, treated drinking water, wastewater effluents, and biosolids. They get there through human excretion, the flushing of unused medications, and runoff from animal operations where large quantities of antibiotics are used. While households represent a huge non-regulated source of these products, other significant sources include pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care facilities, pharmacies, and veterinary operations.

In fact, some studies suggest that nursing homes account for about a third of the medications that are not used. Most of these end up in the sewer system because these facilities must adhere to strict guidelines from the Drug Enforcement Administration requiring that all unused controlled substances be rendered “non-recoverable.” Two health care professionals are required to witness the disposal of these medications. The easiest and cheapest way to accomplish the “observed disposal” of these products is to flush them into the sewer system. Medicare requirements also mandate the witnessed destruction of unused meds purchased through that program.

Some view EPA’s announcement that certain PPCPs may wind up on the 2008 Candidate Contaminant List (CCL) as evidence that the Agency is eyeing regulation of these compounds. However, establishing reasonable limits is a challenge given that gauging the impact of each compound on human health and the environment by studying the fate, transport, mode of action, and toxicity of each individual chemical is nearly impossible. An EPA cross-regional group called the National Regional Science Council PPCPs Team, is studying the issues.

To address the issue, some communities are trying pharmaceutical waste collection programs. These programs sound simple, but can be quite complex. They must take place over the course of a few hours on a designated day and require law enforcement presence. Additionally, some states require that medications collected at these events follow procedures for hazardous waste disposal.

At the present time, there is limited data on treatment options to remove PPCPs from wastewater. Some work shows that longer sludge age helps reduce some compounds but is ineffective for others. The same holds true for powdered activated carbon (PAC). Membrane filters coupled with long sludge age and/or PAC provide the optimum removal for the compounds evaluated.

Despite all the questions around this issue, two things are clear. First, EPA is under pressure to begin monitoring for certain PPCPs as soon as possible and potentially regulate these compounds. Second, the monitoring and removal of PPCPs will necessitate additional funding at the local level – lots of additional funding.

Contributed by Mike Cherniak, CET

The presentation emphasizes the importance of properly identifying stakeholders, identifying gaps in existing regulations, and effectively communicating the regulations to the public. See the linked article for more details.

Contributed by Bob Rafferty, PE

Using modes ranging from foot- and pedal-power to telecommuting, car-pooling, and high-efficiency vehicles, more than 50 Woodard & Curran employees made their way to the office by alternative means.

Those 50+ people represent 16% of the offices participating, and together they saved 7% of all possible trips to and from their offices. Both numbers are up from last year, which was the first entire week devoted to alternative commuting – prior to 2007, the event was Commute Another Way Day. CAWW also coincides with National Bike to Work Week.

Two people turned in the longest people-powered trips, each making a 28-mile journey by bike, and one made his 5-mile trip by bike, foot, carpool, and telecommuted one day, logging the most different modes of all participants.

Together, Woodard & Curran’s CAWW challenge saved more than 2,000 vehicle-miles, and an estimated 109 gallons of fuel, and keeping more than a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere. And that’s from a single week of concerted effort — think what could be accomplished in a year!

Thank you to all those who helped coordinate Woodard & Curran’s CAWW efforts, and to all the dedicated commuters who made it a success.

Contributed by the Sustainability Leadership Committee

• Leadership can and should occur at all levels in the organization
• Ultimately, all training and development work should contain some components dedicated to nurturing the talents of leaders and recognizing strong leadership as a critical skill for the future of our firm.
• To ensure that Woodard & Curran has talented and versatile leaders ready to move this organization into the future and help to make it a great place to work.
• Leadership development is a mindset; it will become part of what we do every day.

Our Pilot Program includes two different groups to represent both the developing and emerging leaders.  The “developing leaders” generally have less than 10 years of experience, while the “emerging leaders” generally have more than 10 years of experience.

The overall goals of our pilot program are:

1. Relationship building;
2. Developing wider knowledge and understanding of the capabilities and talents of our future leaders;
3. Transferring of the principles and values of Woodard & Curran;
4. Building a better leadership pipeline through a formal strategy;
5. Developing a better understanding of the leadership opportunities available;
6. Establishing a talent pool from which to draw from for corporate initiatives and committee work;;
7. Creating a community of leaders;
8. Creating opportunities for leadership;
9. Recruiting new leaders;
10. Ensuring that the program is sustainable; and
11. Encouraging leadership outside of Woodard & Curran.

The success of the program is measured through one-on-one and group feedback, and by the accomplishments of the candidates and the actual promotion and retention of those in the program group.  The program also provides a forum for education, training, and experience-building for future leaders, and coaching opportunities from senior leaders.

With an orientation, immersion, and three successful sessions under our belt, we believe the program is a benefit to both participants and the firm.  We see it as a sustainable part of the growth and development of Woodard & Curran, and look forward to working with new groups of developing and emerging leaders in the fall of 2008.

Contributed by our HR Team

This summer we will host 13 interns and 1 Summer/Fall Co-op student.  They will sit in our Bangor, Portland, Dedham, Andover, Providence, and White Plains offices. In addition to an introduction to the company through “Intern Day,” they will go on field visits, learn about working in an office environment, and make a final presentation on the main project that they worked on over the summer. This real-world experience will help them to refine their technical and communication skills, and begin to teach them how to work with clients in a consulting setting.

We have currently filled all of our internship positions for 2008, but we always accept online applications through the Career Center section of our website.

Contributed by our HR Team

Engineering is a great field to work in. Engineers spend their careers serving the public, designing innovative solutions to complex problems, and, corny as it may sound, building the future of our country and the world. And yet, we have failed to draw enough young people into engineering to meet the need for engineering skills and knowledge.

Studies have suggested that women, and members of other groups underrepresented in engineering, would be more likely enter the profession if they saw more people like themselves in the industry. If this is true, then maybe the way to draw more women into engineering is to promote the accomplishments of women in the industry. That’s an important part why we created the Women’s Leadership Network at Woodard & Curran.

But it’s not the only reason. There are many, many talented women already working in engineering, and the WLN will be a resource for them in their careers. As our mission statement says, “The mission of the Women’s Leadership Network is to foster an environment at Woodard & Curran that values the diversity of women, encourages women to develop as leaders and integrates women in leadership positions within the company” The WLN is a way to share experiences, offer mentoring, and simply help women connect with other women in the company and industry.

We hope that the WLN will not only be a benefit to women working at Woodard & Curran today, but to those that join us in the future. And we hope that this process will raise awareness of the contributions of women working in engineering at Woodard & Curran and in the industry as a whole. In this way, maybe we will help to raise the percentage of women in engineering, until it someday reflects society more accurately.

Contributed by Helen Gorden, PE 

One study, published by the CoStar Group, looked at LEED-certified and Energy Star buildings. It found that these green buildings demand a rent premium, have higher occupancy rates and lower operating costs, and achieve higher sale prices. Essentially, green buildings look like a better investment than non-green buildings.

The other study, conducted by the New Buildings Institute, found that the average LEED for New Construction building use 25-30% less energy than an average building. Ironically, it found that some certified buildings actually use more energy than the code baseline. According to the study, “Variation in results is likely to come from a number of sources, including differences in operational practices and schedules, equipment, construction changes and other issues not anticipated in the energy modeling process. More in-depth analysis of some of the best and worst performers could identify ways to eliminate the poorer outcomes and communicate lessons from the best results.”

Woodard & Curran’s new office expansion in Portland, ME was recently recognized as LEED Certified. When compared to older portions of the building Woodard & Curran also occupies, monthly utility bills in our LEED space show 10% less electricity usage, between 12% and 67% less natural gas usage (heating and cooling season, respectively), and 25% less water consumption.

Our experience confirms the findings of these studies, suggesting that green buildings will soon be the common-sense choice, whether or not states continue to mandate them.

Contributed by Barry Sheff, P.E.

Coca-Cola Enterprises won in the creativity in communications category for its report, Continuing Our Journey. Other category winners include BMW, Novo Nordisk, and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. All the award-winning reports, and the runners up, are available for download through CorporateRegister.com, which lists over 16,500 reports from more than 4,000 companies.

Corporate Register.com is a very interesting resource. It’s an easy way to see what companies are releasing CSR reports. As the library of available reports grows, it will also allow us to look back at the history of a company’s reports. This kind of context will be important for tracking progress and understanding how industries are pursuing sustainability and social responsibility.

Contributed by Lloyd Snyder, PE

A recent conversation with EPA New England shed some light on the issue. According to the individual at EPA, because EPA’s regulatory plans for the upcoming 5 years are not final, the report does not need to include stormwater management actions for the next General Permit.  However, the report should describe the status of best management practices that are being implemented, i.e. are they fully implemented? If not, what progress has been made? Also, the report should explain what, if any, elements of the stormwater management programs that are not finished and the plan for completing them. 

Good general guidance is also available online at EPA’s NPDES Permits in New England page. If the documents posted there don’t answer your question, feel free to contact me.

Contributed by Bob Rafferty, PE

Tyson’s report, “Sustainability – It’s In Our Nature” (large file, about10MB) is based on the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines, which makes it easier to compare to other organizations within the food industry, and across industries. Woodard & Curran has helped clients apply the GRI guidelines, and if you have questions, feel free to contact our Sustainability Services Team.

Contributed by Lloyd Snyder, PE

These brief reports are a good resource for campus sustainability personnel – and anyone else working for sustainability on campus – who were not able to attend the conference themselves.

Contributed by the Sustainability Services Team

“These are all businesses. They're not going green for green's sake. It's the cheapest way to run their businesses…”

“If it's not green, in the near future it won't be considered Class A space. Green is a must-have. It's the best way to attract key tenants and retain them…”

With several states close to enacting high-performance requirements for development, and new high-performance standards coming from ASHRAE, it’s clear that green building isn’t a fad – it’s here to stay.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG

I love this description of the passionate worker! I think it describes many of my colleagues here at Woodard & Curran. A big part of what inspires me about my work is the people I work with. I see passionate workers every day, people who love what the do and do it better as a result.

Contributed by Susan Dubuque, HR Director

“Quick reaction averted blackouts on the Texas grid last month, but the incident served as a reminder of the possible risks of relying too much on wind energy for electricity.
Officials of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) say the grid on Feb. 26 experienced a sudden drop in the system frequency, which was caused by a combination of events, including a drop in wind-energy production just as the evening electricity load was increasing. Wind production fell in a few hours before sunset from more than 1,700 MW to 300 MW. Contributing to the difficulty, multiple power providers fell below their scheduled energy production.”

As we produce more energy from wind and other renewable sources in order to reap the environmental rewards, it’s important to keep in mind the potential risks. Careful planning and site selection are critical, and making sure that a potential wind turbine development has a good, consistent wind profile is an absolute must.

Stories like this also remind us that while wind and other renewable energy sources are becoming a larger part of our energy supply mix, traditional sources are still very important. Coal, oil, and natural gas fired power generation will continue to be a significant part of our energy future, and we need to keep investing in reducing the environmental impacts of those sources as well.

Contributed by Tom Stoughton, PhD

Our hope was to connect with young people to show them how engineers are working to protect the environment and make the world a safer place. Using a two liter soda bottle, a coffee filter, a straw, a piece of paper towel, and some sand, Lauren and Laurel helped groups of youth build “landfills” and demonstrated the idea behind landfill liners.

Kids from 4 to 16 helped bury a piece of "trash" (a bit of paper towel with paint on it) in the "dirt" (sand), and then poured "rain" (water from a pitcher) on the landfill. They watched as the rain seeped through the dirt and trash and carried "contaminants" (paint) to the ground water, which in a real unlined landfill would eventually reach our rivers, lakes, and streams. Laurel then explained that, as engineers, we try to make things like landfills work better, and be more environmentally friendly. Lauren would then demonstrate this by helping the group model a better-designed landfill.

This time, the model included a "liner" (plastic bag) attached to a "pipe" (straw taped into a hole in the corner of the bag) that directed the contaminated water to a location where it could be treated. The students again buried a piece of painted "trash" and caused another rain event – and watched as this time, the contaminated water flowed through the straw to a treatment area, protecting the ground water.

As one parent said, "That's a message that will stay with them for a long time." We certainly hope that’s true, and that some of those same youth may have been inspired to become engineers some day.

For more information contact Barry Sheff, P.E.

Connecticut is leading the way with LEED certification requirements. Beginning in January 2009, all construction projects (public & private) in excess of $5 million will be required to meet green building standards (LEED Silver – 33 of 69 points). By 2010, all renovation projects costing more than $2 million will have to meet the standards.

The new law, PA 06-187, exempts schools, parking garages, and maintenance facilities. Connecticut's state web site offers more detailed information on the requirements.

Buildings in the LEED rating system earn points toward levels of certification depending on how many green features are included in the building's design and construction. The basic level is called certification. New buildings with additional green features can earn ratings of silver, gold, or platinum. Among the measures that can earn points are enhanced energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, water conservation, environmentally sensitive site design, redevelopment of brownfields, and stormwater management. Buildings must be rated by an independent rater certified by the U. S. Green Building Council.

New York City recently enacted a similar requirement, and you can expect other states and municipalities to follow suit in the near future. In fact, the New Jersey legislature is considering several bills that promote green building right now.

Contributed by Jay Sheehan, PE

After a long day, some people will kick back, have dinner and a drink, and talk about sports or politics. O&M people tend to talk about water and wastewater. We just can’t seem to leave it at the plant at day’s end. We like to describe it as passion and deny that it might be an obsession.

One evening I was talking with a few such passionate people; the topic was regulatory inspections. Some managers have described them as a mystery, a “black box” process. The inspector arrives, tours the facility, asks questions, makes notes, and seems pleased during the exit interview. Then you wait for the report – sometimes it’s very positive and sometimes it’s not. You almost never know what to expect. Why is that?

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Inspection Manual is more than 800 pages long. Maybe that has something to do with the variation in how an inspection is conducted, what the inspector focuses on, and how the results are interpreted. On the flip side, most water and wastewater utility staff have never really had any training on how to prepare for these inspections.

On this particular night, we decided there ought to be a formal instructional program to address this void. We also decided it should be visual. More on that later.

Regulatory inspections – compliance, performance, or reconnaissance – are a fact of life at wastewater treatment facilities. Generally performed annually, they combine a detailed review of documents with a walk-through of the facilities. Other inspections might be conducted with a focus on sampling, bio-monitoring, or pretreatment programs. State inspections may be scheduled in advance with the utility manager, while EPA-led inspections typically are unannounced.

Inspectors will have reviewed monitoring reports and records before arriving, so facility managers would be wise to keep the following documents up-to-date and readily available at all times:

• discharge monitoring reports,
• recent toxicity testing results,
• pathogen monitoring results,
• disinfection monitoring results,
• sludge vector attraction and pathogen monitoring records,
• annual reuse forms (if applicable), and
• groundwater monitoring records.

After introductions are made, a regulatory inspector will examine process treatment units, sampling and flow-monitoring equipment, outfalls, and the receiving stream. In particular, the inspector focuses on areas where pollutants are generated, pumped, conveyed, treated, stored, or disposed. The basic objectives of a facility site review are to assess the conditions of the facility's treatment processes, evaluate the plant’s operation and maintenance activities, check the completeness and accuracy of performance/compliance records, and determine whether treatment units are meeting the required standards.

Based on our experience, the odds of receiving high marks from these inspections is predicated on facility staff being able to answer “YES” to a list of fundamental questions, including:

• Is the overall site clean and secure?
• Are all flowmeters properly calibrated and tagged?
• Is all “critical equipment” operational?
• Are you satisfied with the visual appearance of all processes? There should be no excessive scum, foam, or objectionable odors.
• Is the disinfection area clean, functional, and performing effectively?
• Do you have properly prepared chain of custody documents?
• Are your lab bench sheets properly filled out and organized?
• Are you maintaining biosolids records – volumes, characteristics, disposal activities?
• Are standby power generators operable, maintained, and ready for use?
• Do you have your plans in order: Risk Management Plan, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures, emergency action standard operating procedures?

Preparation for inspections should be happening all the time within daily work activities. All staff should be trained on the inspection objectives, focal points, and the process itself. 

SBR guru and good friend Ron Trygar and I ended up collaborating with USA Bluebook and the City of Tallahassee, FL to produce an inspection training guide, Wastewater Regulatory Inspections: A Visual Guide to High Performance. We were filmed performing an inspection of a Tallahassee facility and pointing out key elements of compliance performance, unit process by unit process. Our results are presented to the facility management team at the end of the program. We thought a DVD would serve as an ideal training resource because a facilitator can stop the film at any point and lead a more detailed discussion about a particular topic.

I’m sure at this point you have at least two more questions. The answers are: “no, we do not receive any royalties,” and “yes, there is an alternative training reference.” You can always read that 800-page inspection manual.

Contributed by Mike Cherniak, CET

A significant take-away for me from The Brookings Institution session was an appreciation of the fact that the purpose of government is not so much to pass great laws, as it is to prevent bad laws from being passed. While this might sound like a minimal objective, it is at the heart of our political system, and depends on the public to voice their opinions to properly influence those decisions. Having realized that, I left with renewed belief in the importance – the responsibility – we all have to participate in our government. Like it our not, what our political leaders do depends on the extent to which we become involved at all levels. Now with an election season ahead, my frustration has turned to a greater focus on the issues and an obligation to understand.

This past fall, the House and Senate voted to override the President’s veto of a $23.2-billion water resources bill. Had the veto held, many of our clients, and certainly Woodard & Curran as a firm, would have been harmed by an inability to move forward on needed water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.

On behalf of our firm, I sent letters to all senators and representatives in the states where we have offices, citing why the veto should be overturned. Thousands of people did the same, and that solid support for the bill resulted in both the House and the Senate overturning the President’s veto.

As a firm, we pride ourselves on driving results. We can all do the same locally, at the state level, and nationally, by taking action and contacting our representatives. We all have a responsibility to speak up and what better a time than now, with economic uncertainty and a presidential election on our minds.

Contributed by Doug McKeown, CEO

The cable company provides pretty bad service: incorrect invoices, impossible-to-navigate phone directories, and inexplicable fees are par for the course. Plus, the guy who signed up yesterday is on a cheaper plan than you are even though you have been a customer since the TV was invented.

Surveys show that cable providers rank near the bottom on customer satisfaction. I know if I could switch easily to another provider, I would (but my wife would kill me if I put a satellite dish on our house). I bet you could say the same thing for the phone companies, including your cell provider.

And yet these companies continue to grow at amazing rates! So, if we, the customers, get such bad service, why do the profits of these companies keep growing? In his book “The Ultimate Question”, Fred Reichheld calls this kind of growth based on poor treatment of existing customers an “addiction to bad profits” (If you haven’t read Reichheld’s book, I encourage you to pick up a copy). It seems that either we are undervaluing good service, don’t really care, or just can’t get better service anywhere else.

I can’t imagine that the same thing is true in all industries, and I believe the opposite is true for consulting firms. But I want to know what you think: how highly do you value good service? Do you choose your coffee shop because you get great service there? What about your grocery store? Or maybe you don’t care. Either way, I’d love to hear from you.

I’ll share interesting comments in a future post. I may never understand the cable company’s success, but hopefully I’ll learn something about what kind of service people really value.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG 

A question was posed to me a few weeks ago by a treatment plant owner: is there a course in “troubleshooting” that our staff can participate in? A simple question with a not-so-simple answer.

Troubleshooting is a complex process. Educators explain that teaching the art of troubleshooting involves comprehension of the subject at four knowledge levels. Let’s use a small ultraviolet disinfection system as an example. The system is not providing adequate disinfection and staff are tasked with “troubleshooting” the problem. Before any staff member can be expected to solve the problem they MUST demonstrate:

1. Cognitive knowledge – they must be able to identify each critical operating or mechanical UV system component by name.
2. Comprehension – they must be able to describe the basic function of each UV component they just named.
3. Application – they must then be able to explain how these components interrelate and how disinfection is accomplished (overall).
4. Problem Solving – this level of learning involves activities like corrective maintenance, process adjustments, and troubleshooting.

The reality of troubleshooting is this: an individual cannot troubleshoot a system without addressing the first three levels of knowledge with respect that system.

For this reason, troubleshooting instruction is time consuming and difficult to do effective, although the general “art” of troubleshooting can be taught to jump-start one’s ability to address problems. There are several troubleshooting resources that could be valuable to operators and others in the utility business:

• Troubleshooters.com offers some excellent books for technicians who wish to learn troubleshooting techniques for under $20.  The book “28 Tales of Troubleshooting” for $9.95 is both fun and informative.
• The Learning Shop, Inc troubleshooting course provides information on a highly-acclaimed and hands-on troubleshooting course designed for mechanics, electricians, and technical professionals.
• Simutech Multimedia runs an excellent site with instructional materials for the electrical novice, which starts with basic panel troubleshooting and moves through advanced motor control panels.
• Business Industrial Network offers a huge array of mechanical, electrical, and maintenance troubleshooting programs. The Basic Electrical Troubleshooting Course is an award-winning program and available for under $50.

Contributed by Mike Cherniak, CET 

For the moment, only 2002 data is shown, but we can only assume that more recent information will eventually be presented. It appears that the file shows each facility’s emissions quantities (CO, NO_x, PM10, PM2.5, SO₂, and VOCs), but a glitch sometimes causes that information to not display.

By using a feature of Google Earth that allows you to tilt the display, you will see that facilities are represented by a vertical line of varying height, which corresponds to each facility’s total emissions and makes eyeball comparisons very easy. This height simply shows total tonnage of emissions and doesn’t differentiate between the individual criteria pollutants.

Facilities in the seven included industries (cement facilities, chemical manufacturing, electric generating units, natural gas pipelines, oil and gas production, petroleum refineries, and pulp & paper) in particular should be aware that this resource has been published and is freely available to the public. Other industries should understand that their information is also freely available through the EPA website and could be included in a future release of the Google Earth file. Some of those facilities in other industrial categories are already shown when you use the “Create Your Own” file option at the Where You Live page and choose to see all facilities.

We can’t predict who will look at this file, or how they will use the information, but it does allow users to make rough comparisons between industries or to eyeball emissions in their state or local area. If you have concerns about emissions data posted by EPA regarding your facility, or questions about what the information presented means, let us know.

Contributed by Tom Stoughton and our Air Services team.

As part of our efforts to give back to the communities we live and work in, Woodard & Curran staff volunteer with local schools to educate students about the environment and the protection of our valuable water resources.

For example, in Waterbury, Connecticut, Woodard & Curran coordinated and promoted Waterbury High School's AP Environment class in collecting water samples and participating in the Water Environment Federation's World Water Monitoring Day Event. We also hope that our participation in events like this encourages careers in engineering, the sciences, and water and wastewater treatment.

America is facing a shortage of qualified science and engineering graduates in many fields, including water and wastewater treatment, which are valuable and rewarding careers. If we can contribute to educating youth about their environment, and maybe even inspire a few of them to pursue careers in water resources or related disciplines, then that is time very well spent.

Contributed by Woodard & Curran's Water Services Team.

As David Chrislip says in Collaborative Leadership (co-authored with Chris Larson), "If you bring the appropriate people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and sustainable responses to issues and opportunities within their communities and organizations." My participation in the Institute for Civic Leadership’s Collaborative Leadership Intensive reinforced this idea and my own views on the importance of collaboration.

The collaborative design approach ideally yields projects that are in harmony with the community; preserve environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area; exceed the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and achieve a level of excellence in people's minds; and are seen as having added lasting value to the community. These values are well described in the Context Sensitive Solutions approach to transportation projects.

Wedding a collaborative process to sustainable design principles can drive amazing results. In the U.S., sustainable building design is exemplified by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System. 

The intent embodied in the LEED rating system, which itself was developed through a consensus-based collaborative process, drives the types of projects I pursue. My goal in designing projects in the built environment is to give back to the communities and preserve their qualities. The City of Portland is one of my clients, and the qualities of places like Portland are what regularly gains it national recognition as a great place to live, work, and play. I think my best work supports the things that make Maine great.

I try to bring some of the concepts, concerns, and ideas of collaborative and sustainable design to each project my teams work on. Not only does this make the projects exciting to be a part of, but I think it produces more value for the communities involved. These values are shared by some of our local partners, including Winton Scott Architects, Holt and Lachman, and Scott Simons Architects, among others.

Contributed by Barry Sheff, P.E.

Have no fear. For most projects, this is going to simply take the form of soil management when you install the project elements – utilities, buildings, footings, pavement base, etc. Planning for this during project due diligence and development planning is not difficult. The key is to integrate the site design and environmental planning stages.

Most environmental agencies are now encouraging reuse of historically impacted soils wherever possible, so managing grades on the site to reuse these soils at the project is one way to manage costs. Where soils must be removed from the site, reuse as daily cover at landfills or as aggregate for asphalt pavement production are the preferred methods of off-site reuse.

For still other sites, additional actions to address historic environmental impairments may be required by environmental agencies. Focus on the “big” issues at the site, and come to terms with the fact that you may identify smaller issues as you break ground. These can still be dealt with as line items on your proforma, but the second goal is to minimize project delays due to these conditions.

The keys to the game here are: 1) early detection of issues during due diligence so that you integrate environmental planning into other development plans; 2) development of robust cost models to allow you to take contingent actions along the way; 3) early and frequent interaction with environmental agencies so there are no surprise disclosures or decisions; and 4) frequent communication between development team members, including the environmental engineer, design engineers, architects, development managers, and contractors.

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG 

College and university campuses are often on the forefront of change, and it is no different when it comes to environmental sustainability. Hundreds of colleges and universities have signed on to the American College & University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which obligates them conduct a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and develop an action plan to become carbon neutral as soon as possible.

With so many leading institutions addressing the issues of climate change, many will struggle to determine their carbon footprint and decide how to prioritize initiatives. There are good tools and guidance materials available for quantifying emissions from organizations such as the World Resources Institute. There are also lots of great examples of successful sustainability programs that have prioritized climate change (like those at Yale University, College of the Atlantic, and the University of British Columbia among many others).

Any campus taking on the challenge of reducing GHG emissions has to answer many questions, and the success of its efforts might hinge on defining the boundary of the campus’ footprint and obtaining all of the necessary data. Engaging stakeholders, developing effective and sustainable energy management programs, and establishing realistic and measurable goals are important steps, and it pays (literally) to think about those issues up front.

It is good to see so many colleges and universities proactively addressing climate change (some with Woodard & Curran’s help), and it won’t be long before every college and university campus is doing its part to keep the planet cool.

Contributed by John Williams, PG 

Community revitalization initiatives throughout the U.S. are using active and passive recreation areas as a focal point for development, and it all starts with planning and permitting.

Did you know that understanding how to navigate the permitting process at local, state, and federal levels could make the difference between completing your sports and recreation facility development project on time versus facing years of delays, not to mention avoiding potentially large fines for environmental noncompliance?

From wetlands permitting, to stormwater permitting, to state and federal environmental impact assessments and incorporating conservation measures in project design, permitting is about demonstrating the correct use of common resources.

Permits are issued for specific designs, and are based on the incorporation of best management practices. Woodard & Curran provides this technical support across our company with wetland scientists, planners, and engineers to meet the specific technical needs of your project.

The right site layout and conservation engineering can be the difference between getting project approval and being denied. Woodard & Curran’s engineering staff are LEED-accredited and Low Iimpact Development-certified and can implement Better Site Design practices, incorporating the right green design elements into your project.

Contributed by Anthony Catalano, PE, DEE 

Instituted in 2008, the Massachusetts Water Management Act permits, which protect water resources by limiting withdrawals to a “safe yield,” expire in 2008. To learn more, visit the MassDEP Web site.

Contributed by Jim Rivard, PE 

Do you ever wonder just what recruiters remember about you once you walk away from an interview? This fall, over 40 Woodard & Curran recruiters visited 21 colleges and universities and met with over 1,000 engineering students, looking for talented young people who want the diversity of opportunities a consulting firm offers.

We were impressed with how focused, articulate, and well prepared many were, but it was clear that some had prepared for the interviews and some had not. After listening to those who fumbled with responses, we left thinking that they were probably all great candidates but a little uncomfortable and inexperienced with interviewing.

Most interviewers are looking for certain things from interviewees. We have found some resources on the web that match up well with what we find important in the interviewing process

Adventures in Education’s interview first impressions page is great. It talks about how to make a good first impression, the "don'ts" of interviewing, potential questions to anticipate and be ready for, and questions for you to ask the employer

QuintCareers.com has a helpful interview questions page, listing questions that college students or recent grads are likely to hear from interviewers.

Contributed by Rachel 

Did you know that alternative construction products if correctly designed and specified, could result in cost savings of more than $80,000 for a typical synthetic turf field construction project? This can be 10% or more of the typical construction cost. While engineering represents a small percentage of the overall project from a cost perspective; it is the most critical investment made on a project.

By installing a synthetic turf field, the cost per game played over a 10-year period, when considering all capital and maintenance costs, is actually only about a third of the cost of a natural turf field.

The ACEC of New York awarded Woodard & Curran with an Engineering Excellence Award for developing a design solution for four state-of-the-art synthetic turf ballfields that met the Rye Country Day School’s fast-track schedule and reduced long-term field maintenance and labor costs while meeting the needs of the community, as well as state and federal regulatory stormwater management requirements.

Contributed by Anthony Catalano, PE, DEE 

According to the August 2007 issue of Underground Construction magazine, “The House gave its first indication that under Democratic control it is willing to bump up federal funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The Interior Appropriations bill the House passed in June set aside $1.125 billion for fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. That is $437 million more than what President Bush asked for the CWSRF, and $41 million more than Congress appropriated last year. The Senate has not passed its Interior appropriations bill yet--it's too early to determine whether the increased funding for the CWSRF will hold up. The House set fiscal 2008 funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund at $842 million, an increase of $4.7 million over fiscal 2007. That is about the same level Congress has been appropriating for years.”

Contributed by Jay Sheehan, PE

In Massachusetts, the coastal pollutant remediation grant program, helps coastal communities identify and improve water quality impaired by nonpoint source pollution, has $440,000 available in grants for 2008. Visit the Massachusetts Department of Coastal Zone Management for more information.

Since 1996, more than $5 million in CPR grants have been awarded.

Contributed by Bob Rafferty, PE 

In 2008, the U.S. EPA will begin working with stormwater Phase I and II communities and state permitting authorities to better document stormwater capital needs (costs for stormwater infrastructure that will be needed over the next 20 years) in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS). The CWNS is a report to Congress (issued every four years) on the capital needs for wastewater, stormwater, and nonpoint sources. While stormwater has been a listed category in the CWNS for some time, reporting of these needs by Phase I and II communities has been very limited. In preparation for the CWNS, EPA would like to work closely with community stormwater managers to better document and report these important needs.

To help improve reporting and reach out to local government managers, EPA is announcing a series of webcasts on the CWNS process. The first few webcasts will provide an overview of the CWNS and the process used to document and report capital project needs.

EPA's CWNS Web Seminar Series will provide training on a variety of important topics, including eligibility and documentation rules, cost curves, and methodologies for reporting specific categories of needs, prior to the CWNS 2008 data collection period.

Contributed by Bob Rafferty, PE 

The 2007 USDA farm bill includes a multi-department energy grants platform that, “starts the process of consolidating the renewable energy grant and research programs of USDA into one platform and increases interagency coordination. The first step of this consolidation is to move USDA Rural Development renewable energy grant and research program authorities into the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act has an existing coordinating forum that includes USDA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and other Federal agencies. By moving these programs into this Act, USDA and DOE can more effectively coordinate their research and development activities to better serve the needs of rural America. Key Rural Development programs that would be consolidated under this authority include the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements grant program, with proposed mandatory funding of $500 million over ten years. In addition, mandatory funding for the competitive grant program under the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 would be increased to $150 million over ten years.”

Contributed by Jay Sheehan, PE

Woodard & Curran supported the City of Waterbury’s participation in the Water Environment Federation’s World Water Monitoring Day. Students learned about their area watershed,how watersheds work, and how protecting their waters can have beneficial impacts downstream.

Adopted by WEF in July 2006, World Water Monitoring Day is an international outreach program that builds public awareness and involvement in protecting water resources around the world. Held annually between September 18 and October 18, the program engages communities in monitoring the condition of local rivers, streams, estuaries and other water bodies. Since its inception in 2002, more than 80,000 people have participated in 50 countries.

Along with John Reed, Head of the Science Department at Crosby High School in Waterbury, who is educating his students in ways to protect their local environment, about 20 students visited Hancock Brook as part of their AP Environmental class to collect water samples.

Contributed by Jay Sheehan, PE 

Each year, Woodard & Curran highlights a client panel presentation at our annual O&M business center management conference. At these panels, several current clients describe the challenges they face in their positions and the values that make up our positive relationship with them. They might also suggest ways that we could serve them differently or add new value to the relationship. The forum is always a highlight of our conference.

Author and business consultant Fred Wiersema has explored the details of client coaching, consulting, and project partnering in his outstanding 1996 book, Customer Intimacy: Pick Your Partners, Shape Your Culture, Win Together. I read it about every two years because it provides fascinating marketing, sales, and client care insight through anecdotal stories and case studies of creativity, healthy client relationships, failures, and salvaged collapses. It’s always fresh and educational. This year, I had to buy a new copy because my old one is an unreadable rainbow of highlighting and underlinings.

Try to imagine a company that sends its managers into its customer’s garage workshops to watch them work and ask questions about their tools. A very expensive proposition, yet very productive. By learning what its customers really wanted from their tools, Black & Decker recaptured a market they were losing to Sears and other suppliers.  Marketing executives worked with 50 male homeowners as they used power tools to work on projects.  These executives discovered a lot of dissatisfaction.  Folks wanted a cordless drill with sufficient power to complete a good-sized job. They wanted sanders and circular saws that managed clouds of sawdust; safety mechanisms that instantly stopped saw blades from spinning when power was switched off; and a toll-free hotline to ask questions about their projects. As a result, B&D produced the Quantum line of equipment that met those needs and catapulted B&D back into a market leadership position.

Customer intimacy doesn’t mean you increase customer satisfaction.  It means you are willing to take responsibility for the customers’ results. It requires real solidarity, the exchange of useful information, and the cooperative pursuit of constructive change. 

Rather than simply reacting to client whims, customer-intimate providers discover how to provide complete solutions to client needs.  They think and visualize past the immediate need and the present time. The client needs a “new pump station.” The classic response addresses flow needs, location, and equipment selection. The customer-intimate provider addresses and articulates issues like aesthetics, security, community safety, structure longevity, ease of maintenance, access and management of critical parts, energy usage and future expansion potential. Providers who think and communicate in this manner become indispensable partners by taking a major stake in their client’s ultimate successes. When two organizations move from a simple supply-buy relationship to a customer-intimate relationship, the unique responsibilities and value of each become clear to both sides.  Both partners are now free to share new strategies, new values, and a new vision of the future. They also begin to care about each other’s personal and organizational health in a sincere manner.

Frankly, the book is a must-read for any product or service provider.. Be forewarned though. If you get a copy, make sure you have a highlighter handy.

Contributed by Mike Cherniak, CET