Edited by Ted
Cushman
CONTENTS:
Wood Dust Listed as Cancer Cause
EPA Phase II Stormwater Rules Get Off to
Stumbling Start
Testing Septic Alternatives
Tearing Down a Half Million Barracks, Army
Looks to Salvage Wood
New Incentives Spark Solar Electric
Resurgence
Offcuts
Wood Dust Listed as Cancer
Cause
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program has listed wood dust as a known cause of
cancer in its
Tenth Report on Carcinogens, released in
December 2002. The U.S. lags behind international listings: The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed wood
dust as a human carcinogen in 1995. Both listings are based on
findings that some wood-shop workers show high rates of nasal
and sinus cancers.
But researchers caution against reading too much into the
listings. "Persons occupationally exposed to high levels of
wood dust do have a substantially increased risk of cancer of
the sinuses and nasal cavities (from two to ten times higher),"
says Dr. Thomas Vaughan of the Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center at the University of Washington. "However, sinonasal
cancer is a very rare disease -- approximately 2,000 cases
occur in the U.S. per year in the general population. Thus, the
absolute risk of sinonasal cancer, even in a person highly
exposed to wood dust, such as a furniture sander, remains very
low."
The high risk was detected in shop workers, not field
carpenters, and it's associated primarily with hardwood dust,
not softwood dust. But some softwoods, including red cedar and
redwood, can cause allergic reactions, notes University of
British Columbia professor Paul Demers, who studies Canadian
sawmill workers. "We have people in B.C. who can't work in the
mill anymore because of allergies," he says.
Kay Teschke, an industrial hygiene professor at UBC, says a
prudent response depends on the context. "In a shop, not just
because of cancer but because of other respiratory diseases
associated with wood dust, there is every argument to have
local exhaust ventilation on every stationary tool. There are
lots of well-designed systems to draw the dust away. But if I
were doing framing on site, I would just say next time I buy a
circular saw I would get one that has dust control. If I had
one now without it, I wouldn't be too concerned. The highest
exposures are associated with power sanding -- sanders should
definitely have dust control."
Back to
Top
EPA Phase II Stormwater Rules
Get Off to Stumbling Start
Under 1987 changes to the federal Clean Water Act,
contractors who expose more than five acres of soil have long
been subject to Phase I of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Nonpoint Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or
NPDES (pronounced "nip-deez"), which requires builders on large
sites to create a written stormwater plan, file notification,
and practice erosion control measures. Phase II of the program,
which kicked in on March 10, extends the requirements of NPDES
to "small construction activities" -- jobs that disturb between
one and five acres of soil.
The scope of the new regulation is actually wider than it
sounds. That's because the one-acre threshold includes not just
the job you may be working on, but also any adjacent sites that
are part of the same "common plan of development or sale." For
example, if you grade a quarter-acre lot in a subdivision where
the area disturbed over the course of many years will add up to
more than one acre, you have to pull a permit. If your subs
control the work at some point, they might have to pull one,
also -- and all of you may share the responsibility to carry
out the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, or SWPPP
(pronounced "swip").
Most jobs don't need an individual permit. They'll fall under
the EPA's Construction General Permit (CGP), which lays out a
menu of erosion control methods called Best Management
Practices, or BMPs. The builder just has to create a written
plan, with a site drawing and a description of the control
methods he intends to use. Then he mails a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to the EPA. Two days after mailing the notice, he's
automatically covered under the general permit. The permit
holder is expected to post his plan at the job site, apply and
maintain the control measures, inspect routinely, and adjust
the plan as needed.
There's
just one problem: At the moment, there isn't any Construction
General Permit. The CGP that the EPA issued five years ago
expired on February 17, and as of March 7 the agency didn't
expect to have a new one ready before late spring. A policy
memo to EPA regional administrators from assistant
administrator John Suarez noted, "This lack of a new permit
will leave all construction sites from one to five acres
without the ability to gain coverage under a permit for those
States where EPA is the permitting authority."
Suarez goes on to say, "The EPA has decided to make
enforcement for lack of permit coverage a low priority because
a new Construction General Permit has not been promulgated."
But according to the memo, EPA still expects builders to use
the Best Management Practices and will still take action if it
sees pollution happening.
As of now, EPA has direct responsibility only for Alaska,
Arizona, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Puerto Rico. All the other
states have authority to administer NPDES themselves. But
according to Marilyn Parson, an environmental analyst with the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 21 of these 43
"delegated" states still don't have their general permits in
place, either -- which could leave builders vulnerable to
third-party lawsuits that the Clean Water Act allows any
citizen to file.
In Washington State, even the Phase I rules are in limbo. To
settle an environmental lawsuit, the state has agreed to
rewrite its general permit -- a job that will take at least
until summer. And state official Jeff Killelea says Washington
is not sure what to expect as the program expands to cover
small sites.
"The number of people who need a permit is going to go up
dramatically," says Killelea. "One real estate group said it
might double or triple, but that is just speculation. It's a
big unknown." But it's clear that state officials already have
their hands full: Some state inspectors currently have a
caseload of 200 work sites apiece, says Killelea.
In practice, erosion control requirements are nothing new,
notes Parsons. "There are lots of local regulations already in
place to control sediment and stormwater runoff from sites even
smaller than one acre. Builders have been doing that for years.
It's the paperwork that we think is onerous: A federal
stormwater plan is a very extensive document."
Back to
Top
Testing Septic
Alternatives
Where conventional septic tanks and leach fields fall short,
new technology can sometimes do the trick. Sand filters,
biofilters, and other active systems can produce effluent as
clean as a modern sewage treatment facility can and may
overcome problems like unsuitable soil, a high water table, or
limited land area for leach fields.
But local authorities are reluctant to permit innovative
systems if they can't be sure how the new methods will perform.
Scientists at the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test
Center (www.buzzardsbay.org) in Buzzards Bay,
Mass., are trying to provide answers. They've set up
conventional and alternative systems side by side to assess
their performance under real-world conditions. So far, their
data shows that biofilters and sand filters can outperform
conventional systems -- at least in Massachusetts soils and
climates.
Buzzards Bay scientists are monitoring
data from biofilter systems (top) and conventional septic
systems (above) to verify performance claims.
"There are several reasons people go for alternatives," says
Joe Costa, the test center's director. "It could be to upgrade
an existing system to modern standards, or to expand an
existing system when space is limited. Or, if it is hard to get
the 4-foot separation from groundwater, a sand filter or
biofilter could be an alternative to a mound. Then there's
removal of nitrogen or phosphorous near a sensitive body of
water, which these systems do more effectively."
Beyond the test data, Costa says, local officials often want
to see the systems demonstrated in their area, where soils or
climate may be different. And he notes that the need for
monitoring and maintenance may be a drawback. For new
developments, he says, officials often prefer a small
collection system with a centralized filter, pump, and disposal
field. But, depending on conditions, that could still cost less
than new sewers.
Back to
Top
Tearing Down a Half
Million Barracks, Army Looks to Salvage Wood
Between 1938 and 1944, the U.S. army built close to 500,000
"temporary" wooden barracks to house the millions of men who
were mobilized to fight World War II. Fifty years later, most
of those "T buildings" are still standing on army posts around
the country, where they take up valuable space and create a
maintenance headache. The army would like to get rid of
them.
But that's easier said than done. So far, the approach has
been demolition and landfilling. But on some bases, that's
taking up 80% of the landfill space, according to a Corps of
Engineers report -- and it creates a pollution problem. Most of
the wood is coated with layer upon layer of lead-based paint,
which makes it illegal to landfill in some states. In
California, the army had to pay $12 million to remove shredded
wood from a civilian landfill after a low-bid contractor dumped
it there in violation of state environmental laws.
AmeriCorps and Habitat volunteers helped
the Corps of Engineers take apart "temporary" World War II
buildings in a pilot study of deconstruction
methods.
In any case, dumping this wood is a huge waste of high-quality
lumber, says John Stevens of the Monterey, Calif., firm Wood
Waste Diversion. Stevens is working with Fort Ord, Calif.,
officials and Corps researchers to find ways to clean up the
wood and market it for reuse. Working with Auburn Machinery of
Auburn, Maine (800/888-4244,
www.auburnmachinery.com) and a team from
the army's Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
(www.cecer.army.mil), Stevens has developed
a trailer-mounted machine that planes lead-coated wood down to
clean lumber at a rate of 3,500 feet per hour. This year, CERL
presented a Team Award to a group that included Stevens along
with Corps researchers, other industry partners, and
representatives from the Austin, Texas, Habitat for Humanity
chapter and the AmeriCorps volunteer program who have helped
develop deconstruction techniques at army facilities.
Developed by California firm Wood Waste
Diversion in cooperation with Army Corps researchers, this
mobile wood-recovery unit can strip lead paint from 3,500 feet
of lumber per hour. Planed clean, siding from a half million
old barracks could supply millions of feet of clear lumber
(bottom).
"Most of the painted wood is tongue-and-groove siding," says
Stevens. "Some of it is 1x6 and some is 1x8, but it's all the
same profile across the country -- what they called 'Profile
106.' It's a Boston drop siding with a scalloped edge at the
top, and a groove at the bottom." Stevens' machine trims the
pieces to a heavy 5/8-inch thickness, square on four sides, and
clean.
"Fort Ord has Douglas fir," says Stevens. "Fort Chaffee,
Arkansas, has southern yellow pine -- some of that is gorgeous.
All the siding is clear, and about a quarter of it is vertical
grain. It all depends on what wood comes at us, but there are
markets for all this stuff. Flooring and bead-board are two of
the big products, but we have to make sure the quantity is
available for the big buyers like Home Depot. They don't want a
one-shot deal of 100,000 feet -- they want 100,000 feet every
month. And we're not there yet, but we're getting there."
Back to
Top
New Incentives Spark Solar
Electric Resurgence
The photovoltaic industry took a dive when energy tax
credits were revoked after the Carter administration left
office in 1980. But in the wake of electric utility
deregulation, incentives are back in a new form. In many
instances, small surcharges applied to electric bills are
providing enough money to fund significant support for
investments in small-scale solar power. Coupled with advances
in technology, "buy backs" and other support measures are
creating something of a comeback for solar panels on
buildings.
Silicon Valley solar panel supplier Akeena Solar, Inc.
(www.akeena.net) provides information on the
company's website about solar incentives and subsidies in
California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. "Those are the states where we
think the incentives are high enough to really make it
financially attractive, along with the decent solar exposure
and high electric rates," explained Akeena marketing director
Wahila Minshall. But many other states are now providing
incentives; a complete list is posted at
www.dsireusa.org, the website of the
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy.
Buy-back incentives and tax breaks cut
the cost of this 5.7-kilowatt solar roof by half. Where power
is costly, solar panel investments can bring positive cash flow
and quick paybacks, says Barry Cinnamon of Akeena Solar,
Inc.
Rhode Island contractor Bob Chew recently started a
solar-panel spinoff to his remodeling business. The new
company, SolarWrights (www.solarwrights.com), installs panels
supplied by Schott Power (www.us.schott.com). "We start at one
kilowatt -- using four 6-foot by 4-foot modules," says Chew.
"That's enough to power 10 hundred-watt bulbs -- maybe 10 to 30
percent of a home's annual needs." Chew says the buy-back
rebates plus other state incentives drop the cost of that basic
installation from $15,000 down to more like $6,000 -- and then
the power is free. "On sunny days the meter spins backwards,"
says Chew.
Back to
Top
Offcuts
New Mexico lawmakers are considering a bill to take away
zoning powers from Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe
for the five-mile belts that surround the three cities,
according to a report in the
Albuquerque Journal. The
cities now share zoning authority with county governments, but
the bill would give full control over "extraterritorial" areas
to the counties of Santa Fe, Bernalillo, and Doña
Ana.
Wood I-joist market share may be peaking, said a report
in the March 7 Random Lengths newsletter. I-joist
production grew in 2002 at 6.0%, less than the 6.8% increase in
single-family home starts. The engineered members seem to have
barely maintained their current 41% share of wood floor decks
built. Wood I-joist producers are operating at just 68% of
capacity, creating pressure for lower prices.
A construction defects bill in the Colorado legislature
is creating sharp controversy, according to press reports. A
provision that requires homeowners to give builders a chance to
remedy problems has been accepted, but lawmakers are struggling
to find a workable compromise concerning provisions to cap
punitive damages and limit attorney fees.
The Atlanta Home Builders Association is suing the city
over slow permit service, according to a report in the
Atlanta Business Chronicle. The Association says that
Atlanta has collected permit fees without providing permits
within a reasonable time and is asking the court to force the
city to refund any money it has not spent providing permitting
services.
Developers in Arizona are upset about a federal plan to set
aside 1.2 million acres as critical habitat for the cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl, reports the Associated Press. The
Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the owl as an endangered
species. Developers say the restrictions would cover two-thirds
of the private land in the Tucson area, and they question
whether the owl is really endangered. There are only 18 of the
birds in Arizona, but developers say the animal lives in
greater numbers in Mexico and Texas. A federal judge ruled
against opponents of the listing in district court; a ruling on
an appeal is expected this summer.
Fort Wayne's 2003 Parade of Homes has been cancelled this
year after only one builder signed up to build a house for
the event, according to the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.
HBA director Maurine Holle told the paper that builders were
being more conservative because of the economic climate and
noted that while homes in the event provide good exposure for
builders, there is a risk a home will go unsold and represent a
major expense.
The governments of Dallas and Fort Worth are pressing their
legislators to allow the cities to regulate where modular
housing can be located. Cities can already restrict
HUD-code "trailer home" siting through zoning, but
factory-built houses that conform to regular building codes are
currently treated equally with stick-built housing.
The Newark Star-Ledger says New Jersey governor
James McGreevey has asked lawmakers to give towns the right to
levy impact fees. Under the proposal, towns would also be
allowed to require "transfer of development rights," a scheme
under which fees paid by builders and developers would go to
reimburse farmers who agreed not to develop their land. The
bargain could let towns shape future development into planned
zones of housing and open space.
A top Florida insurer has stopped issuing new workers' comp
policies and is not renewing policies that expire,
according to the Miami Herald. The Hartford made the
move days after a 21% rate hike was rejected by state
regulators. Builders dropped by The Hartford will be forced
into the state's assigned-risk pool, which could triple their
comp cost.
New tax laws are turning some people into "serial home
buyers," according to the New York Times. Changes in
the IRS code that made capital gains on sale of a primary
residence tax-free after two years in the home have motivated
some homeowners in rising markets to change houses frequently
as a way to accumulate cash.
Back to
Top