This entry addresses a problem that has plagued the Geotechnical Construction Industry for at least 30 years.  The root of the problem is a lack of confidence in the products our industry produces.  As an example in the 70’s a particular slurry wall contractor consistently produced slurry walls with poor or falsified quality control.  The end result was slurry walls that leaked, and as a by-product the slurry trench construction technique and the slurry wall product suffered from a lack of confidence by owners and engineers.  The slurry trench technique and slurry walls have sense regained the confidence of owners and engineers, but it took 10 years to repair the damaged caused by a few contractors that cut corners, or ignored QC data. 

A similar error has been made as of recent in the soil mixing industry.  A few contractors have produced soil stabilization projects with the deep soil mixing technique that have consistently failed to meet soil strength and permeability specifications, and as a result the owners have elected to utilize other construction techniques, and thereby decreased the spend for deep soil mixing.

We as an industry must police ourselves to assure that the products we produce are of the highest quality.  Failure to consistently produce a quality product whether it be a slurry wall, deep soil mixing, or jet grouting will decrease the number of engineers specifying our products, and owners selecting our technologies.

Sustainability of our Environmental Policy is complex to say the least, but clearly there is a reality that many in the movement either are ignorant of or chose to ignore. The simple truth is that there is a limited amount of capital that can be expended on the environment. This limited amount of capital increases for a given nation as that nation’s GDP increases. For example over the past 10 years China’s GDP has grown, and they have drastically increased their expenditures on the environment.  Corporations struggle with the same reality. The decrease in income over the past 18 months has caused companies to slash their budgets for environmental projects.

The question that must be asked in development of a Sustainable Environmental Policy is “What is the best and highest use for this limited capital?” Is the best use of this limited capital, to decrease the emissions of CO2 by increasing the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels? Is the best use of this capital supplying clean drinking water to the 1/3 of the world population that does not have this basic necessity? 
This blog will attempt to ask these hard questions, and present the data that will hopefully result in a more responsible formulation of an Environmental Policy.

I just returned from my fourth trip to China in the last year, and while the reports about the condition of the environment are true, that is only half of the truth.  It is true the lakes and rivers have been severally damaged by the environmental impact of urbanization and industrialization over the past 15 years.  It is also true that the air in the major metropolitan areas is contaminated.  However, that is only half of the truth.  The truth is that China is making great strides, and investing more in environmental infrastructure than any nation outside the US.  They have a plan and are executing on that plan.  They have authorized the construction of 1,000’s of water and sewage treatment plants, they are transitioning from coal to nuclear power more rapidly than the US, and have budgeted billions of dollars for environmental remediation.

The truth is the Chinese people are very proud of their nation, and ingrained in their culture is the belief that their nation is made up of their people and their land.  In other words as they see the quality of their environment degraded they see their nation being degraded.   The challenge for the government leaders is giving 2,000,000,000 people the opportunity to work, raise a family, and develop hope for their children while also developing the infrastructure to protect the environment.  Given how far they have come over the past 15 years I would give them an “A”.

Who remembers the acid rain scare of the 1980s?  As an environmental professional the fear and hysteria resulting from the Acid Rain “Armageddon” is a prime example of how too many environmental policies are being formed based upon emotion and not sound science.

If you will recall, photos of forests annihilated by acid rain, buildings dissolved, and lakes and rivers destroyed created widespread fear.    Since that time we discovered that the forests that were affected by the power plants that released SO2 where actually effected by the particles in the emissions and minimally if any by the formation of Sulfuric Acid (the byproduct of SO2).  In fact, in some areas the SO2 actually had a beneficial effect on plant growth, and in certain areas farmers are now required to add sulfur as a fertilizer where previously it was a byproduct of coal combustion.
There is no question that SO2 treatment equipment on power plants fired by sour coal or coke is beneficial.  The effects of this treatment equipment can be seen in the decrease of annual average SO2 concentrations in the US decreasing from 70 micrograms per meter cubed in 1960 to 12 in 2000.  That is an 82% reduction, and the trend continues to decrease.  This indicates that the current policies we have implemented are working, and if we are allowed to stay the coarse we can produce energy from the combustion of coal (soar or “clean”) without any adverse environmental effect from SO2.

For those of us that have spent our careers improving the quality of the environment the misinformation depicting an environmental “Armageddon” is insulting.  However, without doing the research it has been hard to say to my RECON team “good job” we are making a difference.  Well this series of blogs gives all of us in the industry the encouragement that we are making a difference and the data proves it.  First lets look at air quality since that poses the greatest risk to the general public.  The EPA primarily tracts six metrics to assess air quality:  

1.    Ozone (O3)
2.    Nitrogen Oxides NOx
3.    Carbon Monoxide (CO)
4.    Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
5.    Particulate Matter (PM10)
6.    Lead (Pb)

In general each of these contaminants is on the decline.  For example, since 1970 the CO level has dropped by 73% in the US and 80% in the UK.   We should be encouraged that CO levels continue to decline under current regulation, and all indications that if current regulations are allowed to run their coarse the air quality will continue to improve.

Our real challenge is developing countries are improving their standard of living at the expense of their local environment.  If we want to focus on CO as a problem we need to assist Beijing, New Delhi, and Mexico City in addressing their pollution from burning coal and garbage.  These developing countries are where CO posses the only real health risks.  Congratulations environment industry, I would say we have won this CO battle.