A revision to AP-42 regarding Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills was finalized on August 15, 2024. AP-42 is the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate air pollution emissions from various sources. EPA drafted new emission factors for the MSW Landfill portion of AP-42 on January 12, 2024 and offered a 60-day public comment period that ended March 12, 2024.
Highlights of this final action include:
For additional information, please contact SCS Engineers, or visit the EPA Air Emissions Factors and Quantification website.
Anecdotes on stormwater design, management, and regulation by a non-engineer
The purpose of this series is to present case studies and general thoughts on stormwater. When possible, I want to share interesting examples that may offer opportunities to challenge existing paradigms and spark discussion. As an ecologist/toxicologist, I have very much enjoyed this now 20+ year foray into what is often an engineer’s wheelhouse. My hope is that I can offer a different angle on stormwater, as we seem to be increasingly affected by high storm intensities and more stringent regulations across the country.
A Little Historical Context…
Stormwater has, and continues to be, largely the purview of engineers. Engineered designs for managing stormwater have existed for thousands of years and can be seen in both the “ancient” old (Mesopotamia) and new (Mayan and Aztec) world. Designs were empirical and began out of necessity for safety and to protect land uses, such as residences and agriculture. In modern times, empirical observations have been converted into modeling tools to simplify the process greatly.
These days, stormwater issues are getting more complex. Heavy, widespread water pollution generally began in the mid-1800s with the Industrial Revolution but became a more obvious problem following World War II. The first major U.S. water quality law was enacted in 1948 and became much more prominent in 1972 as the Clean Water Act (CWA) we know today. The CWA addresses stormwater because it clearly has the potential to carry pollutants, particularly when it originates from large industrial sites.
More recently, we have become much more aware of the key role of long-term planning when it comes to stormwater. Trying to engineer your way out of a stormwater problem will likely be much more expensive than simply planning well and maintaining a properly designed system.
Although stormwater engineering was once simply about preventing stormwater from being destructive, it has now become at least as much about maintaining water quality. As pollutants become more prevalent in more confined and constrained systems, effects on human health and the environment are likely to be more pronounced, especially when existing ecosystem services are inadequate to mitigate impacts. Moreover, ecosystems expected to treat stormwater, such as wetlands and streams, are now likely protected themselves, and opportunities for “dilution being the solution to pollution,” while still a valid concept, are becoming rarer. Our ecosystems simply do not have the capacity to handle everything we are throwing at them.
That’s the context for this series: How we control and treat stormwater in the context of interesting observations and experiences. The intent is to share stories and thoughts to create conversation and reflection on stormwater played against the regulatory background.
Authors Note
I am an ecologist with a postdoctoral background in environmental toxicology and have been professionally engaged as a consultant in water quality issues since 1989. Recently I have become engaged in a number of legal discussions and disputes regarding water quality; in particular, industrial stormwater, and I continue to be interested by issues that come up during the course of a general stormwater practice.
I am a pragmatist: I have practiced long enough that I have left idealism behind. Idealistic approaches are valid as a theoretical baseline, but anything beyond that must have scientific or well-documented empirical support. Otherwise, idealism is just sort of adorable, if not misguided, and can lead to real problems.
As an ecologist, I respect our ecosystems as much as anyone. Our goal is to protect human health and the environment. Some parts of this series may appear to some that I’m “siding” with industry or other client concerns, but my intent is always to balance idealism against practical and scientific reality.
In summary: “The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.”
Let’s walk the road together and see what we can figure out.
On July 16, 2024, the Volusia County Council approved a contract with SCS Engineers to develop a new 271-acre Class I landfill. The landfill, located at the southeast expansion area (SEA) of the Tomoka Farms Road Landfill, is part of the County’s long-term plan to meet its Class I sanitary solid waste disposal needs for over a century. The Public Works will oversee the project, Solid Waste Division, under the guidance of the County’s Project Manager.
SCS Engineers will provide a range of engineering services, including developing a solid waste permit application package for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. They will design the landfill gas collection and capture system, supporting infrastructure, geotechnical needs, and leachate collection to protect groundwater and soil. Additionally, they will provide support services for selecting a construction contractor for the first 20-acre disposal cell at the new landfill.
SCS will collaborate with the County to identify any constraints that may impact the cost or constructability of future projects. They will also explore potential opportunities associated with this project to ensure the design complements and maximizes future development opportunities.
Landfills are complex systems integrating liquid and gas management systems to protect the environment. Volusia County selected SCS Engineers for their expertise in designing modern landfills that adhere to strict state and federal regulatory and quality control guidelines. The firm’s understanding of how current landfill operations interrelate with the development of SEA was a key factor in their selection.
Modern landfills are ecosystems that isolate waste from surrounding environments, such as groundwater, air, and rain. While the County’s reuse, recycling, and organics management programs significantly reduce waste in landfills, the SEA development provides an essential service that will continue uninterrupted as communities transition to even more sustainable programs and infrastructure to reuse landfill gas and other byproducts.
Vice President Dan Cooper, P.E., expressed his gratitude, stating, “SCS is privileged that Volusia County has entrusted us as a partner to sustainably engineer SEA’s safe and efficient development. We’re honored to assist the Solid Waste Division in their mission to support the citizens and the environment.”
Additional Resources:
On July 24, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to designate five chemicals as High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation under the nation’s chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). If EPA finalizes these designations as proposed, the agency would immediately move forward with the risk evaluation process. According to the current Administration this step is consistent with a commitment to understand and address environmental and toxic exposures to ensure that every community has access to clean air and water while bolstering efforts to make progress on delivering environmental justice and tackling plastic pollution.
The five chemical substances EPA is proposing to designate as High-Priority Substances are:
EPA will accept public comments on the proposed designations for 90 days after publication via docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0601 at the Regulations.gov page. Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, supporting documents will also be available in the docket.
Chemicals Proposed as High-Priority Substances for Risk Evaluation
All five chemicals were selected from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan, which is a list of chemicals identified by EPA for further assessment based on their hazards and potential for exposure. In proposing these five chemical substances as High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation, EPA had to consider the chemicals’ conditions of use and production volume or changes in conditions of use and production volume over time, impacts to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations including children and workers, and the chemicals’ potential hazards and exposures. EPA also considered more specific criteria such as the chemical’s bioaccumulation and environmental persistence and whether the chemical is stored near significant sources of drinking water.
Vinyl chloride is used primarily in the manufacturing and processing of plastic materials such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), plastic resins, and other chemicals. Many of these materials are used for pipes and insulating materials. This chemical was also involved in the Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen and can cause liver, brain, and lung cancer in exposed workers. Short-term exposure to vinyl chloride can also result in other health effects such as dizziness, nausea, and eye and skin irritation. Vinyl chloride exposure can also damage genetic material in cells, which can lead to numerous adverse health effects. In the 1970s, the White House Council on Environmental Quality and EPA officials raised serious concerns about the health impacts of vinyl chloride as an example when the Nixon Administration asked Congress to write a law to ensure chemicals were made and used safely, which led to passage of the “original” TSCA in 1976.
Acetaldehyde is used primarily in the manufacturing and processing of adhesives, petrochemicals, plastic and other chemicals, as well as intermediates for products such as packaging and construction materials. Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen. Specifically, animal studies have shown that exposure to acetaldehyde can result in the formation of nasal and laryngeal tumors. Short-term exposure can also result in health effects such as irritation of the respiratory system and reduced heart function. Data further shows that acetaldehyde exposure can damage genetic material in cells, potentially leading to numerous adverse health effects.
Acrylonitrile is used primarily in the manufacturing and processing of plastic materials, paints, petrochemicals, and other chemicals. Acrylonitrile is a probable human carcinogen and can cause lung and brain cancer in exposed workers. Short-term exposure to acrylonitrile can also result in health effects such as eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. Long-term exposure can result in reproductive effects such as reduced sperm count and developmental effects such as slowed fetal growth.
Benzenamine is used in the manufacturing and processing of dyes and pigments, petrochemicals, plastics, resins, and other chemicals. Benzenamine is a probable human carcinogen and can cause bladder tumors and pancreatic cancer in workers. Long-term exposure to benzenamine can result in a range of adverse health effects such as difficulty in breathing, tumor growth in the spleen, and possible reductions in fetal viability.
MBOCA is used in the manufacturing and processing of rubbers, plastics, resins, and other chemicals. MBOCA is a probable human carcinogen. Specifically, animal studies have shown that exposure to MBOCA can cause liver and urinary bladder cancer. Short-term exposure to MBOCA can result in eye and skin irritation. Data further demonstrates that MBOCA exposure can damage genetic material in cells, potentially leading to numerous adverse health effects.
EPA Prioritization Process
Prioritization is the first step under EPA’s authority to regulate existing chemicals currently on the market and in use. EPA’s proposed designations are not themselves a finding of risk. If EPA finalizes these designations, the agency will initiate risk evaluations for these chemicals to determine whether they present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment under the TSCA conditions of use (the way the chemical is made and used), which the agency is required to complete within 3-3.5 years. If at the end of the risk evaluation process EPA determines that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the agency must begin the risk management process to take action to eliminate these unreasonable risks.
EPA began the process of prioritizing these five chemicals in December 2023 and also announced that it expects to initiate prioritization on five chemicals every year, which will create a sustainable and effective pace for risk evaluations. According to EPA, the agency has continued to improve the prioritization process by investing in cutting-edge software to review more information earlier in prioritization. EPA has also implemented improvements to its systematic review approaches as recommended by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) by incorporating additional data sources such as assessments published by other government agencies to identify potential hazards and exposures, clarifying terminology to increase transparency in the systematic review process, and presenting interactive literature inventory trees and evidence maps to better depict data sources containing potentially relevant information.
EPA has conducted a preliminary screening and technical review of large data sets to more efficiently identify relevant information for prioritization and risk evaluation and can easily flag information that may be useful to retrieve later in the risk evaluation process. As a result, EPA now has a head start on risk evaluations. At this proposed designation stage, EPA has a much fuller understanding of how these chemicals behave in the environment and their potential hazards and exposures than it had at this point in the process in the previous prioritization cycle conducted in 2019. That has also enabled EPA to make considerably more information available to the public a year earlier than occurred for the first 30 chemicals designated for risk evaluation under TSCA. The public will be able to see which studies and what information EPA considered in its screening review for proposed designation and submit any additional information they would like EPA to consider via public comment.
Additional Resources:
On May 17, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program to include seven additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), raising the total number of PFAS tracked under the TRI to 196 to report in 2025 for the year 2024—the PFAS to report on for 2023 on July 1, 2024 numbers 186.
This decision, mandated by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which requires annual updates to the PFAS list in the TRI, reflects ongoing efforts to monitor and manage environmental exposure to these persistent chemicals.
The EPA removed the de minimis exemption for PFAS under the “chemicals of special concern” category as of October 2023. This elimination underscores the increased regulatory focus on these substances due to their environmental and health risks, thereby intensifying the demands on facilities to track and report PFAS handling accurately. This ongoing regulatory evolution highlights the increasing scrutiny and accountability for environmental stewardship concerning PFAS.
SCS’s educational video Toxics Release Inventory Reporting explains how to identify and quantify facilities subject to TRI reporting, including:
Facilities must start compiling historical and new information to meet compliance requirements. The educational video covers the reporting thresholds and tips for collecting the data, calculating usage, and determining which form to report to the EPA. Some facilities accidentally overreport, so our expert tells you how to avoid this mistake.
Including additional PFAS in the TRI places a greater compliance burden on many industries. Companies must adapt by implementing more rigorous tracking systems and investing in technologies to reduce PFAS emissions or discharges.
Tracking specific product formulations is more important than ever. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and historical reporting are a good place to start. Still, our expert explains how to minimize your facility’s risk of non-compliance, fines, or legal actions by not relying on SDS. She provides many tips for increasing the accuracy and accountability of this public information.
Request Tools and Resources Slides or ask a Hazardous Waste Expert a question here.
On October 16, 2023, US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program released an updated toxicological review for inorganic arsenic, which includes proposed changes to the toxicity factors. Many federal, state, and local agencies use IRIS toxicity factors to assess environmental risk and establish risk-based environmental standards.
For example, the State of Florida and Miami-Dade County derived their direct exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) using these toxicity values, per Chapter 62-777, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 24-44(2), Code of Miami-Dade County. If adopted, the updated toxicity values will lead to lower arsenic cleanup standards and, as a result, will significantly impact the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites throughout Florida.
Toxicity Factors Under Review and Potential Impact
The specific toxicity factors under review are the oral cancer slope factor (CSFo) and the oral reference dose (RfDo). In the current draft of the updated assessment, the IRIS Program has proposed a CSFo of 53 mg/kg/day for combined cancer risk and an overall RfDo of 0.031 µg/kg/day to protect against all noncancer adverse health effects associated with inorganic arsenic across all life stages.
To illustrate the significance of these updates, we used the proposed CSFo to re-calculate the State of Florida SCTLs. The resulting SCTLs would decrease from the current Residential SCTL of 2.1 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg and from the current Commercial/Industrial SCTL of 12 mg/kg to 0.4 mg/kg (assuming all other exposure factors remain the same). If the proposed changes to the toxicity factors are approved, remediation in Florida could feel the impact. An environmental engineer/consultant knowledgeable in due diligence, background assessments, and risk assessment/management can help you navigate these changing regulatory requirements.
Rulemaking Process At Midpoint
The following links will direct you to the proposed toxicological review, a summary of the comments received during the public comment/peer review process, and information on the general assessment review process:
Given the potential impact on the cleanup standards, it is important to remain current with this updated assessment’s development and keep our clients informed of the potential changes. EPA is reviewing over a hundred comments received on the October 2023 draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic. We understand that the final document’s projected release date will be announced once the Science Advisory Board delivers its peer-reviewed report. We’ll keep you informed.
Additional Resources:
About Arsenic
Arsenic is a naturally occurring trace element in the environment. It is in geological formations, and levels in soil can range from 1–40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Erosion, leaching, and some human activities can increase arsenic levels in soil. Arsenical pesticides were once commonly used in agriculture to maintain turf (e.g., golf courses, parks, etc.) and treat wood. While their use has been significantly restricted, residual concentrations can still be detected during an environmental site audit/assessment.
Land Remediation and Brownfields: Information, case studies, grants, and educational materials.
Meet our Authors: Environmental Scientist Anabel Rodriguez Garcia and Lisa Smith, a principal technical advisor and expert in risk-based corrective action.
WISCONSIN’S PRINTING INDUSTRY CHARTER MEMBERS Present
Join us on June 26, 2024, from 9:30 am – 3:00 pm (Central Time) at the Waukesha County Technical College
Registration fee is $35
Program Agenda (Central Time)
9:30 a.m. – SGP and Green Tier Program introduction
10:00 a.m. – How to Identify Hazardous Waste in the Printing Industry
10:45 a.m. – How Sustainability Is Shaping the Printing Industry
11:30 a.m. – Update on Ozone Nonattainment Emission Reduction Credits and PM 2.5
12:15 p.m. – Lunch (provided)
1:00 p.m. – Overview of Environmental Compliance including Partial Tour of Printer Portal with Cheryl Moran
1:45 p.m. – Small Business Resources Available from the DNR
2:15 p.m. – Advances In Flexible Packaging Recycling (STRAP Process)
3:00 p.m. – Adjourn
Speaker Highlight: Cheryl Moran is a member and leader of the Wisconsin Printing Council and a member of the Great Lakes Graphics Association. She is presenting the 1 p.m. discussion on compliance issues and the printer portal; the regulatory portion of the changing regulatory and sustainability landscape for printers. Many changes to state and federal compliance can impact the printing industry. For example, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) impacts industrial facilities and the public. Annual reporting is due from printing and production facilities meeting a growing number of criteria – in short – more industrial and government facilities will be required to file mandatory reports in 2024 and 2025.
The emergency planning includes annual notification of hazardous chemicals present at your site to your state and local emergency planning and response organizations, and with your fire department. That information is used to help them prepare for emergencies such as chemical releases or fires and is made available to the public.
This information is disclosed through the toxics release inventory (TRI). TRI covers a variety of industries based on their NAICS code, which employs 10 full-time equivalent employees or more and stores or uses specific chemicals, including 189 PFAS.
This report is often referred to by a variety of names, including Toxics Release Inventory, TRI, SARA 313 report, Form R, or Form A. Do not be fooled by the nomenclature; these all refer to the same reporting requirement.
WISCONSIN’S PRINTING INDUSTRY CHARTER MEMBERS Present
Join us on June 26, 2024, from 9:30 am – 3:00 pm (Central Time) at the Waukesha County Technical College
Registration fee is $35
Program Agenda (Central Time)
9:30 a.m. – SGP and Green Tier Program introduction
10:00 a.m. – How to Identify Hazardous Waste in the Printing Industry
10:45 a.m. – How Sustainability Is Shaping the Printing Industry
11:30 a.m. – Update on Ozone Nonattainment Emission Reduction Credits and PM 2.5
12:15 p.m. – Lunch (provided)
1:00 p.m. – Overview of Environmental Compliance including Partial Tour of Printer Portal with Cheryl Moran
1:45 p.m. – Small Business Resources Available from the DNR
2:15 p.m. – Advances In Flexible Packaging Recycling (STRAP Process)
3:00 p.m. – Adjourn
Speaker Highlight: Cheryl Moran is a member and leader of the Wisconsin Printing Council and a member of the Great Lakes Graphics Association. She is presenting the 1 p.m. discussion on compliance issues and the printer portal; the regulatory portion of the changing regulatory and sustainability landscape for printers. Many changes to state and federal compliance can impact the printing industry. For example, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) impacts industrial facilities and the public. Annual reporting is due from printing and production facilities meeting a growing number of criteria – in short – more industrial and government facilities will be required to file mandatory reports in 2024 and 2025.
The emergency planning includes annual notification of hazardous chemicals present at your site to your state and local emergency planning and response organizations, and with your fire department. That information is used to help them prepare for emergencies such as chemical releases or fires and is made available to the public.
This information is disclosed through the toxics release inventory (TRI). TRI covers a variety of industries based on their NAICS code, which employs 10 full-time equivalent employees or more and stores or uses specific chemicals, including 189 PFAS.
This report is often referred to by a variety of names, including Toxics Release Inventory, TRI, SARA 313 report, Form R, or Form A. Do not be fooled by the nomenclature; these all refer to the same reporting requirement.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has launched a pilot program to speed up the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, focusing on construction stormwater discharges. Started on April 29, 2024, this pilot in 10 counties is designed to streamline the application process for land development projects over one acre that faces unique environmental challenges. Eligible counties include Allegheny, Beaver, Bucks, Chester, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe, Montgomery, and York.
From May 1, 2024, the pilot will process up to three NPDES applications per quarter per county, with a yearly maximum of twelve. Applications must involve a licensed professional to oversee the stormwater plan. A significant improvement over traditional methods, the pilot combines completeness and technical reviews within 47 business days. If deficiencies are found, applicants have 22 business days to resolve them, hastening the move to a draft permit stage and public notice.
Exclusions apply to permit renewals, amendments, and projects on brownfield sites or those with large land disturbances or previous enforcement actions. The pilot also mandates two pre-application meetings to ensure eligibility and a final submission within 22 business days after these meetings.
However, the pilot program excludes several types of applications, such as those for permit renewals, amendments, transfers, projects exempt from application fees, or those proposing unapproved stormwater control measures. It also excludes projects requiring special reviews, those disturbing large land areas, or those associated with past enforcement actions. Notably, projects on brownfield sites must complete all required environmental studies and obtain necessary approvals before applying.
The Bureau of Clean Water manages the statewide Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) program, as specified under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102, which mandates an E&S permit for certain activities causing significant earth disturbances:
Managed by the Bureau of Clean Water, the pilot seeks to cut application processing times significantly. Additional details and application procedures are available on PADEP’s website.
A draft of the PAG-02 General Permit that would become effective on December 8, 2024, has been posted to DEP’s eLibrary.
Additional Information:
Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling software are critical for managing our nation’s surface waters. Quantitative models help local communities and environmental engineers better understand how surface waters change in response to development and pollution, and how to protect them. Surface water modeling software has been useful for solving large-scale watershed and local stormwater studies for over 50 years. Over time, these tools have evolved dramatically.
Early versions of Hydrology & Hydraulics (“H&H”) software were developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Design Center (HDC). Examples are the early hydrologic modeling tool HEC-1 and the early open channel hydraulics tool, HEC-2. When a model was executed, results were in a simple tabular format, generally without notes about unusual results or troubleshooting tips.
These pieces of software were slow and cumbersome to use – generally, one needed a pad of paper and a pencil to make notes on printouts of the input code. Using these tools was a hassle, but – you knew every inch of the information entered. Back in the early days of these tools, specialty modeling firms flourished. Generally, “modelers” had master’s degrees supporting hydrologic or hydraulic study, which helped inform modeling.
Fast Forward to 2024
The picture of H&H modeling has changed dramatically. Understandably, the light-speed growth of software and computing power has enabled us to enter information and get results out of almost any model many times faster than the equivalent effort 40 years ago. Software user interfaces have become Windows-based, with 3D charts and output tools that give the whole story of a simulation with very easy access.
Moreover, an increasing number of public agencies are publishing their own HSPF-based long-term statistical hydrology simulation software. HSPF stands for “Hydrologic Simulation Program -FORTRAN,” originally developed by the EPA as a flow/duration model. It gives statistical returns of rainfall/runoff events over a period of years. A sophisticated but cumbersome to use platform, many agencies have incorporated the HSPF engine into a locally focused “Black Box Model,” which reduces user input down to the general characteristics of tributary areas and then directly produces a necessary BMP (pond, swale, etc.) footprint.
Legacy to HydroCAD
The legacy USACE tools mentioned previously evolved from HEC-1 and HEC-2 to HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS in their current versions. Both current models feature advanced data input, computation, and output modes. HEC-RAS, in particular, has evolved to perform dynamic flow simulations, GIS-based mapping, and 2-D flow calculation (not just straight down the channel, but also coming in/out of the channel from all directions).
Some newer, practicality-based tools, such as HydroCAD, enable the general civil engineer to perform H&H calculations to a significant level of detail for single-event storms. Additionally, today’s younger engineers have developed an ability to use new software that exceeds any previous generation.
Field Experience and Expertise Matters
Challenges can arise when adeptness at locating and entering data exceeds the user’s experience in hydrologic or hydraulic studies. Balancing this knowledge is crucial since both are essential for accurate water resources study (environmental, stormwater, and work related to climate change).
The aspect of current progress that gives one pause is how easy it has become to get results. Today’s users are adept at running simulations and getting results. However, sometimes these results are wrong or at least should raise questions.
Unfortunately, a novice user can get results that may look “fine” to them but odd to an experienced water resource engineer. If not carefully reviewed for engineering judgment, the less experienced user could inadvertently issue plans or study results with costly errors—This is a critical reason for a seasoned modeling professional’s review for quality assurance.
H&H software is more accessible and rapid than ever before but offers new challenges in ensuring those using, interpreting, and reviewing output have sufficient background in the subject matter. Moving forward, modelers who receive assistance with the “buttons and levers,” as well as a review of results by an experienced water resources professional, will learn to start thinking critically about their analysis results more quickly.
More formally, a project-specific QC process geared toward the review of applied hydraulics in H&H modeling helps maintain a firm’s quality of modeling performance and documentation
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Resources:
About the Author: Jon Archibald, PE, has over two and a half decades of experience. He has strong expertise in leading multidisciplinary design teams, stormwater facility design, site civil engineering, and capital project execution. Jon has served clients in the solid waste, municipal, aviation, military, high-tech, hydroelectric, and flood risk sectors.
He successfully delivered several capital programs as a public works project manager for the City of Oregon City, OR. He has also assisted public agencies as an owner’s engineer. His combination of public and private experience helps foster collaboration on challenging design and permitting efforts.
Jon has delivered dozens of successful civil and water resource projects in the Pacific Northwest, California, and Alaska. Projects include site civil infrastructure, private and public utility design, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling studies, and design and accreditation of flood control systems. You can reach Jonathan or any of our Stormwater experts at or on LinkedIn.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
