Emission Standards Exhaust Patience

By: Larry Flynn

Although research on the proposed standards is said to have been conducted for more than three years, it was interesting timing that the proposal was sent to the White House only days after the presidential election last November, and at a time when Republican leaders, such as Newt Gingrich, were keeping a low profile. Could it be that after a couple of years of keeping a low profile themselves the environmentalists saw this as the time to burst back onto the scene?

Currently, the ozone standard allows a one-hour level of 0.12 parts per million. The proposal would tighten the standard to an eight-hour level of 0.08 parts per million.

There is no current standard for the new fine particulate matter proposal. The proposal would regulate the discharge of fine particulate matter (PM) that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM-2.5). This would apply to concentrations of 15 micrograms per cu ft annually and 50 micrograms per cu m daily. The current PM standard regulates particles the size of 10 microns or smaller (PM-10) in concentrations of 50 micrograms per cu ft annually, and 150 micrograms per cu m daily.

Questions abound about the necessity of the new standards, the manner in which they were arrived at, and their cost versus benefit derived. Many areas of the country are struggling to conform to the standards that exist today. Increasing the number of nonattainment areas only will put that many more areas at risk of incurring highway funding sanctions, thus further limiting our industry's ability to provide the motoring public with increased mobility and less congestion and pollution.

While projections of the increase in the number of areas that would be in nonattainment differ, the increases would be significant. According to AASHTO, the Environmental Analysis Branch of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that the number of areas in nonattainment of the PM-10 standard would increase from 41 to 168 with the new standard. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the number would increase to 507. According to FHWA, areas in nonattainment of the proposed ozone standard would increase from 106 to 355.

Even typically supportive members of Congress realize that EPA has gone too far, too fast. According to AASHTO, in February, Sen. John Chafee (R-RI), chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, warned that a public backlash could be expected if the new standards were implemented. "If you push this thing too far, too fast there are going to be steps taken by the American public," he said.

Even bad ol' advocates of a safer, better maintained and more efficient highway infrastructure want our children to breathe clean air. Laws regulating clean air have their merits, but they must be created with careful consideration not only of their benefits, but of the consequences that might result in a lowering of everyone's quality of life. EndArticle Publication:1 PubDate:05-01-97 Pagenumber:12 Category1:Law: The Contractor's Side Category2: Category3: Image1: Image2: Image3: Image4: Image5: Caption1: Caption2: Caption3: Caption4: Caption5: Title:The "Pros" of Design-Build Construction Subhead:A lawyer's view of legal issues affecting the roadbuilding industry Abstract: ByLine:Cordell Parvin Content: BeginArticle In my December '96 and January '97 columns, I discussed the design-build approach to construction of transportation projects. The interest of DOTs in that approach was discussed during the recent American Road & Transportation Builders Association Convention. I was asked by the Contractors Division to make a presentation on why the design-build approach was being used in the highway construction field and what contractors should do to live with it. It was clear from the contractors who attended the meeting that the majority would prefer to never have to deal with design-build. With these negative feelings from contractors, why have some public owners gone to the design-build method for construction of highway projects? I believe the design-build method is being used in the transportation construction industry because of the following:

-- Public owner resource constraints in the face of changing, interrelated technologies and new financing arrangements, and

-- Perceived potential for cost and time savings with improved overall quality.

Resource-friendly

Design-build projects theoretically permit owners to take advantage of the potential time and cost savings offered by the process while integrating new technologies and taking advantage of new financing arrangements with reduced internal resources required.

Many state DOTs have been forced to downsize their workforces. Through early retirements, many senior-level designers and project engineers are no longer employed by their respective DOTs. As a result, many state DOTs no longer have the internal resources to furnish design and project inspection services with the same consistency as they have done in the past.

Under the design-build model, the design-builder largely assumes responsibility for the design and has significant QC/QA responsibilities. New technologies and financing options also are affecting how DOTs build projects. For example, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) require special computer, finance, technological, and integration skills to implement. Some DOTs find it easier to procure ITS projects through design-build with a detailed set of performance specifications, rather than through traditional methods using design specifications.

Financing, like technologies, may play a role in a DOT selecting the design-build method. Clearly, states are seeking creative ways to finance the construction of needed projects. Some states have enacted public-private financing legislation that provides for submission of original, unsolicited proposals for infrastructure construction. For instance, in Virginia, under the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995, the Commonwealth of Virginia may entertain proposals related to any "transportation facility," which includes any road, bridge, tunnel, overpass, ferry, airport, mass transit facility, vehicle parking facility, or similar commercial facility used for the transportation of persons or goods, together with any other property that is needed to operate the transportation facility, subject to certain exclusions.

Time and quality

In addition to allowing for construction progress in the face of reduced DOT resources, the use of design-build is perceived to reduce the cost and time required to construct a given project while, at the same time, improve the quality of the final product. Many in the industry believe that when the designer and contractor work closely together as a team to evaluate construction alternatives, perform value engineering, and consider constructibility issues during the design process, significant cost savings may accrue to the owner.

This effect can be maximized as the contractor and designer build a relationship through multiple projects, overcome traditional animosities and learn to take advantage of opportunities to improve schedule, budget, and quality. Costs may be further reduced by the owner not awarding separate design and construction contracts and not participating in the disputes between the designer and contractor.

I am aware of several state DOTs who believe that one of the most significant advantages to design-build contracting is the opportunity to fast track projects. Significant time savings can be had because, as the different components or phases of the design are completed, the contractor can begin construction of each completed component. Thus, a full set of detailed construction drawings is not required as a condition of starting construction. Again, since both the builder and designer share in the risk, each has an incentive to work according to a coordinated set of plans with as little conflict as possible. When problems are discovered, each has an incentive to design an appropriate fix on a timely basis (in the field, if possible) to avoid impacts to the project. Absent the designer sharing in the cost of delay, the incentive is normally not there, particularly with constructibility issues or contractor-caused problems.

Finally, to ensure quality, most states are including in design-build contracts extended warranty provisions or even maintenance requirements for a set period of time, in addition to performance requirements. Thus, from a quality perspective, in addition to obligating itself to meet the performance acceptance criteria for the project, there is often an incentive to build a finished, high quality project that will not require excessive warranty or maintenance work.