brownfields

April 16, 2019

In a letter dated December 18, 2018, Patricia Overmeyer, Deputy Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization at the USEPA encouraged the IRS to clarify the proposed opportunity zone regulations (REG-115420-18). She reminded the IRS that investments in the assessment, remediation, and redevelopment of brownfields properties in qualified opportunity zones (QOZ) are included within the scope of qualified opportunity funds (QOF).

Her goal is to give Opportunity Fund investors confidence that QOF investments can be used to assess, remediate, and redevelop brownfields properties located in QOZs. Subsequently, these clarifications may lead to the economic revitalization of many of our nation’s disadvantaged communities.

The public comment period for these regulations expired on December 28, 2018. The public hearing was held on February 14, 2019; participants requested additional guidance on a wide variety of proposed regulations, with many suggesting improvements to the regulations allowing for more flexibility in regards to business investment.

FULL TEXT

December 18, 2018

Kirsten B. Wielobob
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115420-18), Room 5203
Internal Revenue Service
PO Box 7604
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044

Subject: U.S. EPA Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization Seeks Regulatory Clarifications and Improvements to Proposed IRS Rule Regarding “Investing in Opportunity Funds,” REG-115420-18

Dear Ms. Wielobob:

On behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR), thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Department of Treasury’s Proposed Regulations §1400Z-2(a)-1, 2(c)-1, 2(d)-1, 2(e)-1 and Revenue Ruling 2018-29, regarding “Investing in Opportunity Funds.” EPA’s OBLR encourages the IRS to clarify and improve the proposed rule to better foster investment in blighted and contaminated properties, or “brownfield sites,” in designated Opportunity Zones.

The “Investing in Opportunity Act” has the potential to spur investment in communities where neighborhoods have long been plagued by concentrated distress and those left behind by the economic recovery following the Recession. Many of these communities struggle with stagnation and lack of access to capital, in part due to the challenges of remediating and redeveloping their brownfield sites. A brownfield is a property where the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant from the property’s former use complicates or inhibits the property’s expansion, redevelopment, or productive reuse. Brownfield sites often stigmatize neighborhoods and perpetuate blight and socio-economic distress.

EPA’s OBLR encourages the IRS to clarify in the final guidance that investments in the assessment, remediation, and redevelopment of brownfields properties located in Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZs) are included within the scope of Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs). This clarification will provide an incentive to invest funds in the assessment, remediation, and reuse of brownfield properties. Assessing, remediating and redeveloping brownfield sites in QOZs is integral to the primary purpose of the Investing in Opportunity Act provisions¹ because:

• Brownfields remediation is often the first step to spurring revitalization within distressed communities. In low-income areas which have often suffered a long history of noxious land uses, illegal dumping, closed industry facilities, and lack of health and safety enforcement, federal incentives for revitalization should prioritize ensuring that areas with blighted, underutilized and/or contaminated properties are safe and prepared for redevelopment as the first step towards renewal.
• Public health and environmental protection are matters of primary concern to distressed communities. Hazardous materials and other contamination on brownfield sites are associated with poor health outcomes (e.g. cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, injury) and higher mortality rates among infants and adults. Creating incentives to invest in remediation of brownfields will promote economic development and better health outcomes, saving costs and enabling a more productive workforce.
• Brownfields properties are overwhelmingly concentrated in places of people of color, low-income populations, and otherwise marginalized communities, which are heavily represented among the QOZs. Recently, EPA’s OBLR conducted an analysis recently which found substantial overlap of known brownfield properties within designated QOZ census tracts. The IRS regulations should create incentives for investment in brownfield sites in order to help overcome stagnation, social inequity, and environmental justice concerns within the QOZs, as these factors create barriers to revitalization.
• Brownfield redevelopment can transform abandoned and underused sites into community and economic assets such as mixed-use developments, housing, and other productive reuses, without contributing to urban sprawl. Further, brownfield properties are often centrally located in areas where transportation and utility infrastructure are already available, which can make them valuable properties for development.
• Brownfields remediation and redevelopment can take significant time, beyond the development timeframes expected at greenfield projects or at properties with little or no contamination. A successful brownfields redevelopment usually involves environmental assessment and investigations, the development of remedial cleanup plans, coordination with neighborhood stakeholders to ensure that cleanup is protective of public health, and substantial involvement in regulatory approvals, often including approval and inspections of the remediation by state officials through what are typically called “Voluntary Cleanup Programs” established in state environmental agencies — all before the vertical development can occur. Thus, the time limitations proposed by IRS in the proposed regulations must be sensitive to the long timeframes often needed to address contamination issues at brownfield sites.

Clarification Requests and Comments:

EPA’s OBLR requests that the IRS make the following clarifications to the proposed guidelines. These clarifications will give Opportunity Fund investors confidence that QOF investment can be used to assess, clean up, and redevelop brownfields properties located in QOZs.

1. Brownfields Cleanup of Real Property Should Constitute “Original Use”

EPA’s OBLR requests that the IRS clarify the definition of “Original Use” so that the term applies to property that is a brownfield site as defined by section 101(39) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), which is the law that establishes the U.S. EPA brownfields program and guides brownfields considerations by many other federal departments and agencies. The IRS has used this definition of “brownfield” as well, under 26 U.S.C. Section 198(c), which permitted certain treatment of expenditures on “qualified environmental remediation” at a “qualified remediation site”, which was defined as “any area . . . at or on which there has been a release (or threat of release) or disposal of any hazardous substance.”

While most new investments assume that a property already meets applicable health and safety standards, brownfields properties are different in that they are complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.

• Investment to assess and remediate environmental conditions at brownfield properties are required to make these properties financeable and developable.
• Essentially, all lenders and investors require environmental investigation and cleanup for properties which are brownfields to ensure they are safe for redevelopment.
  • Brownfields remediation can make previously unsuitable properties ready for investment by making them meet basic safety standards and safe for human health and the environment.
  • Making previously unsuitable properties located in QOZs ready for investment enables properties to “commence use” within the QOZ.

Defining “Original Use” to incorporate brownfields properties located in QOZs creates the best solution to enabling QOF investments in brownfields remediation and redevelopment. This clarification will address the concern that the 30-month window for substantial improvement is unrealistic for brownfields properties, which take longer than traditional vertical development projects due to the added challenges of contamination.

Example: A brownfields remediation firm purchases a contaminated brownfields property in a QOZ, where a former factory was once located, to remediate the land and sell the property for new use. This brownfield property should qualify as QOZ property under “original use.

2. Cleanup or Reuse of Vacant or Underutilized Property Should Constitute an “Original Use”: EPA’s OBLR requests that the IRS clarify the definition of “Original Use” so that the term applies to property that is vacant or underutilized for a period of one year or more. For purposes of Section 1400Z-2(d)(2)(D)(i), if property is vacant or underutilized for at least a one-year period, use prior to that period should be disregarded for purposes of determining original use. This borrows from the commonsense definition of “original use” for Enterprise Zone facility bonds in 26 CFR 1.1394-1 (h) and adds “underutilized.”

“Underutilized” could be defined as it is in other federal statute, such as the definition of “underutilized” in 45 CFR 12a.1 (which defines underutilized as it relates to property owned by federal agencies), stating that ” underutilized” should mean an entire property or portion thereof, with or without improvements which is used only at irregular periods or intermittently by the owner or operator for purposes of that owner or operator, or which is used for current purposes that can be satisfied with only a portion of the property.

The definition of original use should also permit QOZ investment in properties that contribute to blight or create barriers to economic vibrancy due to prolonged vacancy or underutilization. Defining original use to include new use of properties that are contributing to decay within distressed communities is clearly in line with the purpose of the incentive

Example: A developer purchases a property to rehabilitate for new use. The property has a factory on it that has been vacant for more than one year. Regardless of whether that property is reused for a similar manufacturing purpose, a new manufacturing purpose, or a different kind of development (such as commercial or residential), this property should qualify as QOZ Property under “original use.” The same should apply for a property that has a 5-acre factory on it where only 0.5 acres of space are currently in use.

3. Foreclosed and Tax-Reverted Properties Held by Local Units of Government Should be Treated as “Underutilized or Abandoned Property”:EPA’ s OBLR requests that the IRS clarify that any property that has been foreclosed upon and reverted to a local unit of government or land bank should qualify as “vacant and underutilized” regardless of how long it has been vacant, abandoned or underutilized.

Local units of government often acquire brownfields and other blighted properties through tax delinquency, abandonment, bankruptcy, etc. A bright line test around the status of ownership for properties in foreclosure, receivership, or involuntary transfer may be easier to determine than the historical use of the property and expedite investment in assembled properties, particularly in distressed urban areas.

4. Brownfield Investments Should Count Toward Substantial Improvement: EPA’s OBLR requests that the IRS clarify that improvements to land, including brownfields assessment, cleanup and other site preparation costs, are included as expenses that will meet the “Substantial Improvement” test for a QOZ Property. This aligns with the standard definition of “tangible property” (“land plus improvements”).

Without this clarification, it is unclear how improvements to the land itself factor into a calculation of substantial improvement, given that the adjusted basis in the example outlined in Rev. Rule 2018-29 pertains only to improvements to a building. While Rev. Rule 20 18-29 indicates that the cost of the land on which the building is located is not included in the adjusted basis for the substantial improvement calculation, it is unclear what the calculation would be on a brownfields project for which the primary or sole improvements are improvements to the land itself, when vertical development expected later.

Environmental assessment and remediation activities can make a property ready for redevelopment where it would otherwise be unsafe for reuse due to the presence or potential presence of environmental contamination. Unless the land is assessed, remediated to appropriate contaminant levels and exposures controlled (based on reuse of the property), any building and business investment will not occur on the property.

The following environmental assessment and remediation activities commonly occur at brownfield properties because they are necessary to enable safe reuse:

• Removing underground storage tanks when excavating for basement or parking
• Environmental site assessments (Phase I/II) to investigate potential contamination for due diligence purposes and admission into a state or tribal voluntary cleanup program
• Contamination cleanup of soil and groundwater on site
• Engineering controls/barriers that prevent exposure of environmental contamination
• Abating asbestos or lead paint when rehabilitating an existing building

Example: A developer purchases Property X, which is located in a QOZ, for $1 million. Property X consists of a building previously used as a factory erected prior to 20 18 and land on which the factory building is located. Sixty percent ($600k) of the $1 million purchase price for Property X is attributable to the value of the land and forty percent ($400k) is attributable to the value of the building. QOF A intends to convert the factory building to residential rental property. The transformation will require $800k in environmental remediation costs. Within 29 months after the date of QOF A’s acquisition of Property X, QOF A invests $800k in remediating the property and $500k in additions to the building. Clarification is necessary to ensure that the expenses associated with remediating the land will count toward the substantial improvement calculation. The same is true for a similar scenario common at complex brownfield sites in which at the close of the 30-month period the only expenditures have been for remediation of the land.

5. Gains from QOF Investment in Brownfield Improvements to Land Should Be Permitted to be Carried Over into Other QOZ Investments:EPA’s Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program requests that the IRS enable gains realized from the sale or exchange of QOZ Property to be deferred if they are reinvested in replacement QOZ Property within a 12-month period beginning on the date of the sale or exchange, with the QOF’s basis in the replacement Property being equal to the QOF’s basis in the QOZ Property at the time it was sold or exchanged. This carryover basis will preserve any gains not recognized in the event that a subsequent sale is not followed by the reinvestment in replacement QOZ Property within a 12-month period.

Clarification on this issue is particularly pertinent to facilitating the ability for QOZ Businesses to remediate brownfields properties with QOF funds to sell to a vertical developer and still access the benefits of the step-up in basis. Without this clarification, using QOF funding for brownfields remediation and property improvement as the primary business activity might require the owners of the site to sit on the site for the duration of the ten years after remediation is complete in order to access the benefits of the Opportunity Zone incentive.

Example: On January 1, 2019, T, a calendar-year taxpayer, invested $1 million of gain in B, an QOF partnership dedicated to brownfields cleanup that remediates properties to sell for future vertical development by other parties. B immediately makes a $1 million investment in remediation and land improvements to a brownfields site that qualifies as QOZ Property. On January 1, 2023 (after four years), B sells the remediated QOZ Property to a vertical developer for $1.5 million and reinvests all of the proceeds in replacement QOZ Property within 12 months. Clarification is necessary that if the entire $1.5 million from the sale of QOZ Property is reinvested into replacement QOZ Property: 1) the deferral and reduction in basis timeclocks on the original $1 million investment would not reset, and 2) the 10-year timeclock on would not reset for the $500,000 in gain.

6. Allow QOF Investments to be Stacked for Brownfield Properties that Require Remediation: EPA’s OBLR requests that the IRS clarify that the 30-month window to demonstrate substantial improvement to the land via remediation and other site preparation activities is a separate 30-month window from follow-on vertical development.

Brownfields remediation and redevelopment often includes separate land improvement (horizontal development) and vertical development phases, and investors face regulatory risk of effectuating cleanup which enables the property to be financed. These factors make the substantial improvement 30-month window extremely difficult time frame in which to complete a redevelopment which involves remediation of environmental contamination.

Large redevelopment projects such as auto manufacturing site or former hospitals may require extensive demolition of existing buildings, excavation, cleanup and grading as early site preparations for the construction of the new structure. It is common to spend several years on existing structural demolition, earthmoving, and environmental cleanup on large sites, which almost guarantees that the finished building will not be completely operational by the end of the 30-month period for substantial improvement. Many “ground up” construction projects in cold weather climates will also face greater challenges in achieving occupancy within 30 months and will likely be a work in progress. Clarity is needed so that significant — and transformative — redevelopment projects can be pursued.

Thank you for considering our requests for clarifications. The clarifications we are requesting will give Opportunity Fund investors confidence that QOF investments can be used to assess, remediate, and redevelop brownfields properties located in QOZs. Subsequently, these clarifications may lead to the economic revitalization of many of our nation’s disadvantaged communities. Should you want to discuss our comments and requests for clarification, please feel free to contact me at 202-566-2774 or .

Sincerely,

Patricia Overmeyer
Deputy Director
Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

¹See H.R. Rept. 115-466, 537, which describes the intent to attract an influx of capital to designated low-income communities with impacts and outcomes in those areas including job creation, poverty reduction, and other metrics.

Learn More:

• Brownfields and Remediation
• Opportunity Zone Grant Programs
• Proposed Guidance

December 12, 2018

On October 19, 2018, the Treasury issued proposed guidance related to the new Opportunity Zone tax incentive created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Opportunity Zones are communities where new investments may be eligible for significant tax incentives.  The incentive is designed to spur economic development and job creation.

New tax code Section 1400Z-1 provides the rules for designating Opportunity Zones and Section 1400Z-2 allows a taxpayer to elect to defer certain gains based on timely investment in Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) and excludes post-acquisition gains on investments in QOFs held for at least 10 years.  The proposed guidance under Section 1400Z-2 addresses the gains eligible for deferral, types of taxpayers who are eligible, the type of eligible interest, the timeframe to invest in the QOF, and the requirement to include previously deferred gains.  The proposed regulations also provide rules for self-certifying as a QOF, valuation of QOF assets (90% test), and guidance on qualified businesses.  The proposed rule would permit an investor making an investment as late as the end of June 2027 to hold the investment in the QOF for the entire 10-year holding period plus another 10 years through 2047.

In a nutshell, the new law allows a taxpayer who would otherwise owe capital gains tax on an investment to roll-over the proceeds into an Opportunity Zone and thereby defer (or eliminate) capital gains taxes provided certain conditions are met. As many of the Opportunity Zones will be designated in areas containing Brownfields redevelopment opportunities, SCS expects many of our clients will be interested in this opportunity to do well by doing good. If you are interested in investing in a potential brownfield site, contact SCS Engineers to help you evaluate and manage environmental concerns associated with your site.  Visit www.scsengineers.com to learn more.

The following are links to the press release and proposed guidance:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm530

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/reg-115420-18.pdf

The Treasury plans to present additional guidance before the end of the year, and a public hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2019.   Taxpayers may submit comments by 60 days (around the third week in December 2018) after the publication of the proposed guidance in the Federal Register at www.regulations.gov.  Additional guidance is expected to include the meaning of “substantially all”; transactions that may trigger the inclusion of gain that has been deferred; the reasonable period for a QOF to reinvest without paying a penalty; administrative rules regarding the investment standard; and, information-reporting requirements.  SCS will provide an update when the additional guidance becomes available.

For additional information, you may contact SCS Engineers at   or the blog Author, Christine Stokes.

Additional Resources:

• Brownfields and Remediation
• Grant Applications
• Due Diligence

December 4, 2018

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes grant application guidance for Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, and the new Multipurpose Grants.

$50 million+ will be made available this year.

With the passage of the BUILD Act this year, there are important changes to the grant applications including special consideration given to communities and projects on any waterfronts or floodplains. There are three categories of opportunities for Brownfield grant funding, as follows:

Multipurpose Grants – each proposal is funded up to $800,000 over five years. EPA anticipates selecting ten proposals.

Assessment Grants – Community-wide and Site-specific proposals are each funded up to $200,000 over three years; Assessment Coalition proposals are funded up to $600,000 over three years. EPA anticipates selecting 114 proposals.

Cleanup Grants each proposal funded up to $500,000 over three years. EPA anticipates selecting 40 proposals. Brownfield sites where EPA Cleanup Grant funds were previously expended may not receive additional EPA Cleanup Grant funding in FY 2019.

 EPA is hosting a webinar on December 11, 2018, at 2 pm (ET). The webinar is to assist applicants with understanding the Multipurpose, Assessment, and Cleanup Grant Guidelines. Participants can join the audio conference line at 1-866-299-3188 using access code: 202-566-1817, and the web conference at

SCS Engineers routinely and successfully supports our clients with Brownfield’s grant writing and grant application reviews, in addition to our Brownfields and Remediation Services.

Applications are due by January 31, 2019. Please contact Amy Dzialowski, our Brownfields Grant Specialist or if you have a property or redevelopment district that you think is a good fit for pursuing these funds, or for a conversation regarding this program.

Amy Dzialowski, Project Director, and SCS’s Brownfields Grants National Expert

Brownfields and Voluntary Remediation Experts: Mike McLaughlin, Sr. VP, and Dan Johnson, VP.

August 3, 2018

SCS Engineers periodically prepares Technical Bulletins to highlight items of interest to our clients and friends.  Our most recent SCS Bulletin summarizes the Brownfields BUILD Act (Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development). The BUILD Act was signed into law in March 2018, amending the Brownfields provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Specific changes include increased eligibility for funding, additional liability protections, and changes to grant programs. The link above will take you directly to the summary.

SCS will continually update coverage of this Act on our website. I welcome you to use our staff resources for guidance or to answer questions.

• Mike McLaughlin, Senior Vice President at
• Dan Johnson, Vice President at  (West Coast)
• Amy Dzialowski, Project Director at (Central)
• Christine Stokes, Project Manager at  (East Coast)

July 16, 2018

On April 9, 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury and the IRS approved Opportunity Zones for: American Samoa; Arizona; California; Colorado; Georgia; Idaho; Kentucky; Michigan; Mississippi; Nebraska; New Jersey; Oklahoma; Puerto Rico; South Carolina; South Dakota; Vermont; Virgin Islands; and Wisconsin. The Treasury Department has made the final designations of Opportunity Zones in more states during June 2018.

Use this interactive map to locate eligible zones in your state.

Opportunity Zones are communities where new investments may be eligible for significant tax incentives. The zones are based on Census Tracts that meet income criteria, and were created in the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as a means of helping economically depressed areas through tax incentives for new private investments.

Investors can defer tax on prior gains invested in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (a fund set up to make investments in Qualified Opportunity Zones). In addition, if investors hold the investment in the Opportunity Fund for at least five years they are eligible for capital gains tax reductions or exemptions. If they hold the investment in the Opportunity Fund for at least ten years, they are eligible for an increase in its basis equal to the fair market value of the investment on the date that it is sold.

Brownfields and Opportunity Zones

Many of the communities in the Opportunity Zones have properties impacted by environmental contamination. The Opportunity Zones program provides an economic tool to attract developers and financial backing to communities with brownfield redevelopment needs.

If you are interested in investing in a potential brownfield site, contact SCS Engineers to help you evaluate and manage environmental concerns associated with your site. Visit www.scsengineers.com to learn more.

June 13, 2018

Duluth, GA – SCS Engineers, a leader in environmental and solid waste engineering, recently relocated from Alpharetta to a larger, more strategically located office in Duluth, Georgia. The new office supports SCS’s continued development in the Southeast, our client success-driven growth, and accommodates our growing professional staff.

SCS is always on the lookout for talented senior level professionals in the environmental consulting community. The Atlanta Environmental Services (ES) group is seeking experienced, humble, hungry, and smart senior level consultants with client relationships and business development capabilities to join our team.

SCS Engineers – Atlanta
3175 Satellite Blvd
Building 600, Suite 100
Duluth, GA 30096
(678) 319-9849

If you are interested or know anybody who is interested, reach out to . You may also review our open positions on the SCS Careers Page.

March 15, 2018

Landfill Sites are Finding Second Lives as Real Estate Properties

Innovative projects have sprung up over the years that house retail, apartments, golf courses, conference centers and hotels. Engineers in the solid waste space are applying several structural design techniques that other industries have leveraged for years like building on piles, which has historically been done on marshlands and other unstable ground. They’re also designing floating foundations that allow for movement and making adjustments when differential settlements happen.

Over the years, SCS has designed landfill-related systems for dozens of projects, mainly apartments, business complexes, entertainment complexes, hotels, parks and golf courses. In the past three years,SCS has fielded calls from developers looking into options, resulting in projects moving into the development stages. From small to the largest landfill redevelopment project in the nation , this article gets you started and leads to more information.

February 12, 2018

by Ali Khatami, Ph.D., P.E., SCS Engineers

In south Florida, rising prices of vacant land and unavailability of large parcels of virgin land for development have forced land developers to look into developing old and newly filled lakes. The land price for these lakes is significantly lower than the virgin land and deals are arranged to incorporate the cost of improving the lakefill land into a developable land in the purchase price. Aside from environmental issues that are handled by environmental engineers in relation to obtaining development permits, the ground itself must be improved to sustain the stability needed to bear the proposed development load. Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is proven to be the most economical option for low rise and lightweight developments, such as commercial or industrial warehouses.

The model developed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report entitled “Dynamic Compaction, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 1”, by Robert G. Lukas, dated March 1995, is the primary basis of most DDC programs. Experience of the engineer with the type of the material below the surface is important because the type of material plays an important role in selecting the DDC design parameters used in the model. The design methodology considers four categories of materials in pervious grained soil, semi-pervious soil, partially saturated impermeable deposits, and landfills. The fourth category, landfills, covers waste materials in old landfills but also the material used to fill lakes to create land for new development at a later date.
The material going into a lake may vary depending on the age of the fill placed in the lake. Older lakes filled with debris may include materials that today would never be allowed; while newer lakes are in accordance with state or local regulatory agency environmental permits, which follow a monitoring protocol during filling. The debris in newer lakes may consist of concrete debris, soils, tiles, and any other types of materials classified as clean debris in accordance with the material definitions in the rules.

There are three primary parties involved in this type of brownfields work including the developer, the banker, and the future buyer. Each party has a learning curve to understand and protect their interests.

Developers are cautious because they, very rightfully, have reservations regarding the effectiveness of DDC on the planned investment. Engineers will need several one-on-one and one-on-group teaching sessions with the developer’s primary engineer in charge of the project, and gradually meeting with the engineer’s boss, project director, and eventually the executives of the developing firm. Past successful experience with similar projects play a very important role in justifying the DDC methodology; engineers need to have accurate data and unit costs in tabulated form as part of their arsenal for convincing those in the learning curve.

The process becomes even more complicated when the engineer has designed the DDC program, prepared plans and specification for implementation of the program and the project goes to bid by DDC contractors. To win the work, it is typical for each DDC contractor in the bidding process to return to the client with their version of a DDC program and sometimes less expensive one to put themselves ahead of others. The alternative plans will propose using different equipment, usually the specific equipment that the bidding party already owns, or modeled under a different set of design parameters than the ones prepared by the engineer. Expect communications to become intense, and even with a now more educated developer, they will question every detail of the original planned design. It can be a frustrating and confusing period for all parties.

The engineer must plan to routinely justify his/her design based on design methodologies in literature, justify the design parameters used in the development of the DDC program, and rely heavily on the past performed projects going back a couple of decades. The engineer should even be prepared to obtain permission from past project owners to show the integrity of the building slabs after being in service for many years.

The DDC designer may also need to obtain design parameters from the DDC contractor who has come up with an alternative design to analyze their design and determine any shortcomings in it. If found, further discussions ensue to reexamine the design at hand as the most reliable and the most effective for the developer. Innovation is wonderful, but an expert engineer will not risk the developer’s investment and reputation using unproven technologies; proven technologies are already part of a reputable engineer’s DDC design.

The best way for inexperienced developers to go through the design and implementation phases of such projects is to find an experienced firm with a significant number of similar projects in its experience and trust the outcome of the work by that design firm. Otherwise, the developer will have a very difficult time sorting out the complexities and questions that alternative designs bring forward. The claims of less expensive scenarios without long-term performance justification as to how the foundation will behave over the long term are too risky. The combination of dealing with a new concept for which the developer has no experience and justifying the financial aspects of a properly designed DDC program can make a project even more difficult for an inexperienced developer.

A developer’s project manager should plan to spend significant time with the DDC designer to become familiar with the DDC concept, construction nuances, and the financial aspects of the project. The project manager will need to visit past projects performed by the designer’s firm to confirm claims by the design engineer. Only at that point, the developer’s project manager should proceed with convincing his/her superiors of the validity of the DDC program while asking for assistance from the DDC designer.

Ali Khatami, Ph.D., P.E., is a Vice President with SCS Engineers. He may be reached at

Additional resources are available on these pages: Brownfields and Voluntary Remediation and Environmental Due Diligence and All Appropriate Inquiries.

November 20, 2017

It is challenging to restore properties with a past, but you can do it on time and on budget if you plan ahead to address contaminated historic fill. Follow these tips and use the brownfield redevelopment checklist to keep your next redevelopment on track.

Design Phase
Consider how contaminated historic fill impacts the following:

Site feature locations – You can reduce or even eliminate landfill disposal costs by carefully selecting locations for your building, underground parking, parking lot, utility, and green space.

Storm water infiltration – Do you know that storm water infiltration devices must be located in areas free of contaminated historic fill? Infiltration devices cannot be located where contaminants of concern (as defined in s. NR 720.03(2)) are present in the soil through which the infiltration will occur.

Subslab vapor mitigation system – Already know you have contaminated historic fill on site? Consider adding a subslab vapor mitigation system to the design of your new building. It is usually much cheaper to install this system in a new building than to retrofit one into an existing building. It can also mitigate radon gas.

Planning & Design
Determine if contamination requires the following plans to manage the construction phase:

Material management plan – It establishes how you will separate excavated contaminated material from material that is not contaminated. It also outlines how you will handle contaminated material, either by disposing of it off site in a landfill or reusing it on site in an approved area such as a paved parking lot. This plan also covers screening, sampling, and testing contaminated materials, if required.

Dewatering plan – If the development requires excavation through contaminated historic fill to depths below groundwater, you will need a dewatering plan to properly manage discharge of the water. You may be able to discharge the water to the storm sewer or the sanitary sewer depending on the type and concentration of contaminants. You must determine local and state permit requirements before implementing your dewatering plan.

Demolition plan – The demolition plan for removing existing structures during redevelopment should include handling, removal, and disposal of potential contaminants such as lead and asbestos. The demolition plan should also address recycling and reuse of existing on site materials like concrete. You may be able to save money by crushing and reusing concrete on site as fill material, or by hauling and crushing it off site to reuse it as fill at another property. This approach can save you considerable money compared to landfill disposal.

Ready to start saving time and money addressing contaminated historic fill at your next redevelopment? Contact Ray Tierney  for help evaluating your options in the Upper Midwest, or using the SCS Brownfield Redevelopment Checklist .

Live in another part of the country? SCS Engineers offers brownfields, remediation, due diligence, and all appropriate inquires services nationwide. Contact us today at .

Learn more about these services at SCS Engineers; read our case studies and articles:

Brownfields and Remediation
Due Diligence and All Appropriate Inquiries

July 10, 2017

Creosote is a toxic chemical that has been commonly used as a wood preservative for over 50 years. It acts as a pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide and has been used widely in both land and marine applications.

Studies have indicated that pilings and other artificial structures provide possible environmental benefits, such as habitat for invertebrates, roosts for birds, and a spawning location for certain fish species (e.g., herring). However, far more studies have indicated potential harm from treated structures. It is documented that pilings will leach the most during the first two years after installation after which leaching declines significantly.

The Norfolk Riverfront area has been developed since at least 1887, and the use of treated pilings can be presumed. The majorities of the pilings are presumed to

have been installed over two years ago and are therefore beyond the 2-year timeframe for significant leaching. Pilings that are shown to be in good condition and with a viable use as part of the development effort can remain in place with little effect on the surrounding environment.

This paper discusses the City of Norfolk’s waterfront brownfield redevelopment and the importance of understanding and developing an approach for the managed disposal of creosote pilings. The guidance is based on strategies approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other noted expert sources such as waterfront municipalities, published white papers, and peer-reviewed publications.

Take me to the paper and information about the authors.

Other environmental groups are hard at work in the region. Lynnhaven River NOW, is one organization working with residents, businesses, and community leaders who are restoring and protecting Virginia Beach waterways.

Learn more here: http://www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/