environmental compliance

March 7, 2018

Agri-business companies handling large quantities of chemicals and transporting them through all sorts of conditions to different facilities must be prepared for an accidental spill.  Accidental spills create environmental problems that can cost your business. However,  agri-businesses can control their response to spills and react in ways that limit the environmental impact and help save   time  and money should a spill occur.

Environmental consultant, Tony Kollasch first discusses, what businesses can do to minimize environmental impacts? He covers the importance of spill response preparedness and REACT; Respond, Evaluate, Alert, Contain, Take.

Read the full article published in Wisconsin Agri-Business News Quarterly.

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am

March 6, 2018

SCS Engineers periodically prepares Technical Bulletins to highlight items of interest to our clients and friends who have signed up to receive them.  Our most recent SCS Bulletin summarizes the new rules which took effect on October 28, 2016, with compliance obligations under the NSPS Subpart XXX rule beginning November 28, 2016. Originally, states and local air jurisdictions were to submit their proposed EG rules by May 30, 2017; however, there have been some delays in this process, which we condense and detail in this Bulletin. SCS will continually update coverage of this Rule on our website.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 9:24 am

February 26, 2018

In a Motion filed on November 7, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requested remand of five provisions of the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule (40 CFR Parts 257 and 261), which would allow the agency to reconsider the provisions. This SCS Engineers Technical Bulletin covers the five provisions and the basis for their reconsideration. Read the full text here.

Oral arguments on EPA’s motion took place on November 20, 2017.  EPA had asked that oral arguments be postponed, and all other aspects of the litigation are suspended until it could rule, but the court did not agree. The current provisions in this Technical Bulletin remain in place unless and until USEPA revises or rescinds them in a future rulemaking.

SCS Engineers will continue to track these issues and keep you informed. Join our Technical Bulletin email list by clicking here, or follow SCS on LinkedIn, Facebook, or Twitter .

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:01 am

December 18, 2017

Using a simple example the authors make apparent the importance of understanding a refrigeration system’s actual performance. An energy balance is a very useful tool to do so.

Not only do PSM regulations require that facilities have this in your PSM program, there is real value in understanding a system’s capacities. Operation and efficiency translates to substantial dollar savings every year. Savings that can be reinvested in your facility.

Calculating the total consequences of an unbalance system is more complex, but there are considerable savings running a properly energy balanced refrigeration system. Savings that can fund maintenance needs and avoid postponing timely repairs.

This white paper, presented at the RETA 2017 Conference in Pennsylvania is available in English and Spanish by clicking here.

 

Learn more about environmental and engineering services for Process Safety Management (PSM), Risk Management Plans (RMP), and ammonia refrigeration safety at SCS Engineers.

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:03 am

November 28, 2017

Ann O’Brien of SCS Engineers has pulled together a list of questions that printers should be asking themselves before the environmental reporting season is upon us.

Use Ann’s questions as a guide to find out how ready your company is, and decrease your risk of non-compliance by being more organized.

If you don’t know the answers, ask Ann. She’s one of our air and water permitting, monitoring, and reporting experts at SCS. Ann specializes in printing industry compliance.

Read the full article.

Contact and we’ll direct you to an air, storm water, wastewater, or groundwater expert near you and in your industry.

 

 

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am

November 1, 2017

 

Temporary Landfill Caps
Temporarily capping landfill slopes is becoming a common measure for landfill operators. There are many benefits to closing landfill slopes with geomembrane on a temporary basis. One of the benefits is delaying construction of the final cover. Following is a discussion of the steps that should be taken to determine whether temporarily capping the slope with geomembrane and postponing the final cover construction is a better financial/operational decision.

Cost Burden
Constructing the final cover is costly, and it is considered an unavoidable expense that has no return on the money spent. Therefore, some operators perform a financial evaluation to determine whether the final cover construction costs can be delayed (provided, of course, that such delays are acceptable to the regulating agency). When evaluating whether to delay the final cover, the cost of maintaining the slopes during the postponement period should be considered. The operator must look at the financial aspects of either closing the slopes with a temporary geomembrane or of leaving the slopes open during the postponement period.

Temporary Landfill Capping Option
The benefits of temporarily capping the slopes during the postponement period may include:

  • Eliminating routine mowing
  • Eliminating maintenance of storm water swales on slope
  • Eliminating soil erosion during storm events
  • Preventing rainwater from becoming leachate (i.e., leachate reduction)
  • Controlling odors from the temporarily capped area
  • Improving efficiency of gas collection from the temporarily capped area
  • Improving the aesthetics of the slope (e.g., masking leachate seeps or patchy vegetation)
  • Gaining additional airspace as waste settles during the postponement period

The other side of the coin is the expense associated with the temporary cap. There may be repair costs associated with the geomembrane every few years in order to ensure that the temporary cap remains intact.

Leaving Slopes Open Option
The option of leaving the slopes open during the postponement period involves maintenance expenses such as:

  • Routine mowing of the slope
  • Maintaining storm water swales and temporary downchute pipes
  • Maintaining soil erosion occurring during storm events
  • Managing higher leachate generation caused by rainwater infiltration
  • Maintaining slope aesthetics ( leachate seeps and patchy vegetation)
  • Managing odors from the open areas

The benefits of leaving the slopes open are twofold: first, the operator will save the costs of constructing the temporary cap; and second, the operator will gain additional airspace as waste settles during the postponement period.

Experience with the Temporary Capping Option
As discussed above, both options provide the benefit of gaining additional airspace during the postponement period. Constructing a temporary cap involves the costs of materials and installation, including the geomembrane and the ballasting system that keeps the geomembrane in place. Generally, the financial and non-tangible benefits of a temporary cap that remains in place five years or longer are more attractive than leaving the slopes open; therefore, most operators choose to install a temporary cap. The next step in the financial evaluation should be comparing the costs of the temporary cap to permanently closing the slopes without postponement.

Final Step in the Financial Evaluation
The next question is whether it makes financial sense to postpone the construction of the final cover.

Waste settlement during the postponement period and the resulting airspace are considered the determining financial factor in choosing the right option. If the present worth value of the airspace generated from waste settlement during the postponement period is greater than the cost to construct the temporary cap at the present time, then the temporary cap option would make financial sense; otherwise, the final cover should be constructed without postponement.

It should be noted that the length of the postponement period plays a very important role in this financial equation. Longer postponement periods have the potential for a greater gain in airspace. Another incentive that should be factored into the financial evaluation is the potential return on the money set aside for the final cover construction during the postponement period.

To assist with this financial evaluation, landfill operators are encouraged to discuss these options with their landfill engineers. Settlement models can be performed to calculate the amount of airspace that may be generated during the postponement period as well as the present worth value of the generated airspace. The returns on the final cover construction costs during the postponement will just be “icing on the cake.”

Read the related Advice From the Field blogs from the landfill and LFG experts at SCS Engineers:

Contact the author: Ali Khatami or your local SCS Engineers’ office.

 

 

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am

October 30, 2017

Discovering unexpected pockets of soft soils at the time of construction can delay your project and drive up costs for landfills, support features, and many other types of construction. If you don’t find them, building over them can result in unexpected settlement affecting a structure or building, or cause a slope stability problem for a berm or stockpile. You can avoid both of these scenarios with early investigation and appropriate construction planning.

While landfill development investigations typically require numerous soil borings within the proposed waste limits of the landfill, it’s common to overlook perimeter areas. Pockets of soft soil deposits can be associated with nearby existing wetlands, lakes, or rivers; with wind-blown silt or ancient lake deposits from periods of glaciation; or with fill placed during previous site uses.

The landfill perimeter areas may contain tanks for leachate or fuel, buildings, perimeter berms for screening or landscaping, stockpiles, and other features. A tank or building constructed over soft soils could experience unexpected settlement affecting the performance and value of the structure. The potential for a slope stability problem can increase for a large berm or stockpile built on soft soils.

The first step to avoid these problems and identify problem soils is to include perimeter areas in your subsurface investigation. Perform soil borings or test pit excavations at the locations of the proposed perimeter features such as tanks or berms. If you encounter soft soils, address them like this:

  • If the deposits are relatively shallow, excavate the soft soils and replace them with compacted engineered fill.
  • If the deposits are deeper and there is sufficient time in the project schedule, pre-load the soft soil area to reduce future settlement and increase soil strength before construction, and monitor the pre-loading with instrumentation such as vibrating wire piezometers and settlement platforms to confirm when the pre-loading design goals have been achieved. Preloading can be accomplished with temporary soil fill placement that is later removed when the pre-loading is completed or by staged placement of fill for a permanent fill feature such as a berm.
  • If the project schedule doesn’t allow for pre-loading and the soft deposits are deep, consider a ground improvement method such as GeopiersTM to improve soil strength and stiffness in place. You can then proceed with constructing tanks, buildings, berms, or other structures over the improved soil area without special foundations. You may also use a deep foundation system such as piles or drilled piers to build over a soft soil area.

Contact SCS’s geotechnical engineers for more information on how to find and test soft soil areas early in a landfill’s project schedule, so you can effectively address associated construction issues in a way that considers cost and minimizes unexpected project delays.

Landfill Services

 

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am

October 10, 2017

Additional handling of organics and other odorous wastes can make meeting regulatory requirements more challenging.

 

Pat Sullivan discusses two case studies that provide examples of two different approaches to odor management. The proactive approach resulted in a more positive outcome than the reactive approach. Although the odor issues never go away completely, the proactive facility has avoided lawsuits and regulatory enforcement and continues to have a positive working relationship with the community.

SCS Engineers freely shares our articles and white papers without imposing on your privacy.

Click to read Part I of this two part series. We’ll let you know when Part II is published soon.

 

 

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am

September 27, 2017

Tuesday, October 10, 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm ET

This Air & Waste Management Association webinar covers the effective, sustainable operation of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in today’s changing environment.

The latest updates to EPA regulations in over two decades limiting air emissions from landfills will be reviewed in detail.

Participants will learn the available models for quantifying landfill gas generation emissions and which model to use in different situations as well as energy recovery from landfill gas, its emissions, and how control requirements can affect feasibility.

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:01 am

September 21, 2017

Christine Stokes
SCS Engineers welcomes Christine Stokes, LSRP

Christine H. Stokes, a New Jersey Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) and chemical engineer with 20 years of experience, is now supporting clients out of the SCS Engineers’ New York regional office. Ms. Stokes’ knowledge and experience will ensure a high-level of quality solutions for SCS clients in the New York and New Jersey area.

Ms. Stokes is highly respected by clients, attorneys, and regulatory agencies involved in the environmental industry. For SCS clientele, she will continue her track record of successful project management for environmental sites, including planning and executing remedial investigations for soil and groundwater in addition to vapor intrusion assessments.

She will be responsible for planning, permitting, and conducting remedial actions, including underground storage tank closures and media treatment utilizing in-situ chemical oxidation and bioremediation. In addition, she has expertise with conventional methods such as pump and treat, and soil excavation.

SCS Engineers is known for providing all-inclusive services for contaminated sites undergoing redevelopment. Coupled with Ms. Stokes’ environmental project expertise, she will provide the key strengths respected by clients who appreciate a firm who will meet their performance and technical objectives.

“I am excited to join the SCS team,” said Ms. Stokes. “I see opportunities to support many different clients in both the private and public sectors, including those who require environmental expertise to develop new infrastructure and remediate valuable properties.”

Welcome to SCS, Christine!

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:03 am
SCS Address

Corporate Headquarters

3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806

Telephone

1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us

Required Posting
Send us a message
×