SCS periodically prepares technical bulletins to highlight items of interest to our clients and friends. These are published on our website. This SCS Technical Bulletin addresses the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The purpose of specific sections are consolidated and explained by SCS professionals; specifically:
SCS Engineers welcomes the sharing of resources and respects your privacy – we do not track what is shared from our website. Use the icons featured at left to share this information using your email or social media.
SCS will continually update coverage of this issue on our website blog and SCS social media channels on LinkedIn and Facebook. To follow SCS on social media click the respective icon at the top of our home page.
If you have any questions regarding this technical bulletin, feel free to contact your local SCS Engineers representative, email us at , or contact our professionals listed on the Technical Bulletin.
At the upcoming USWAG CCR Workshop Feb 22-23 in Arlington, VA, Steve Lamb and Floyd Cotter of SCS Engineers will present a session about the advantages and disadvantages of emerging alternative capping options, and how different regulatory agencies are viewing these options.
About this Session: Traditional final cover and capping design for coal combustion residual (CCR) surface impoundments and landfills have included compacted soil liner, geomembrane liner, drainage layer, and a vegetative soil cover. But coal-fired plants oftentimes don’t have the large volumes of soil that it takes to implement these options.
Alternative capping options have recently emerged in the industry such as exposed geomembrane liners or synthetic turf/geomembrane liner systems. Some of these alternative capping options have many advantages over their traditional counterparts. These advantages include faster installation times, minimal need for soil, improved storm water quality, and reduced maintenance and post-closure costs. For surface impoundments, alternative capping designs can also greatly reduce the amount of disturbance of the existing CCR material within the impoundment.
About Steve Lamb: Steve Lamb, PE provides SCS with over 27 years of experience in solid and hazardous waste management, environmental engineering, civil engineering, hydrology and hydraulics, landfill engineering, remedial design, and regulatory compliance. Mr. Lamb is a Vice President and director of SCS’s Charlotte, NC office.
About Floyd Cotter: Floyd Cotter specializes in solid waste management projects. His project work involves all areas of solid waste management including planning, permitting, transportation, landfill design, construction, and monitoring. Mr. Cotter is also experienced in general civil engineering, construction oversight, environmental site assessments, closure and post-closure plans, and permit and contract document preparation.
EPA is proposing a GHG SER of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and requesting comment on it as well as two lower levels, specifically 30,000 tpy and 45,000 tpy CO2e, respectively.
The Associations do not believe there is sufficient information to support lowering the GHG SER below the proposed 75,000 tpy CO2e level and provided a table utilizing equivalent criteria pollutants from combustion sources (i.e., NOx, CO) yields CO2 emissions as high as 780,000 tpy CO2.
EPA already concluded in USEPA, Proposed PSD Revisions Rule, 81 FR 68137 that the burdens of regulation at a GHG SER level between 30,000 and 75,000 tpy CO2e would yield a gain of trivial or no value from both a programmatic and individual project-level perspective. Therefore, NWRA and SWANA strongly recommend EPA retain proposed GHG SER of 75,000 CO2e (or higher), and resist pressure to lower the GHG SER.
On the Topic of Biogenic GHG Emissions, the EPA’s final rule requires clarification to remain consistent with previous documentation and research to prevent significant permitting delays and increased costs that will not result in meaningful emission reductions.
The Associations encourage the EPA to ensure that waste-derived biogenic CO2 (e.g., from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills) is treated as carbon neutral under the final PSD Permitting Revisions Rule to be consistent with prior Agency determinations specified in this memorandum and documents as follows:S. EPA, Memorandum Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, McCabe, Janet, November 19, 2014.
S. EPA, Memorandum Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, McCabe, Janet, November 19, 2014. The documents highlight waste-derived, biogenic CO2 as a type of “carbon neutral” feedstock based on the conclusions supported by a variety of technical studies and conclusions of the Agency’s latest draft Framework for Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources, which was released with the memo. The Agency memo stated that “the Agency expects to recognize the biogenic CO2 emissions and climate policy benefits of such feedstocks in [the] implementation of the CPP.”
US EPA, Emission Guidelines for EGUs, 80 FR 64855. Both the revised Framework, and the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) peer review of the 2011 Draft Framework, found “that the use of biomass feedstocks derived from the decomposition of biogenic waste in landfills, compost facilities, or anaerobic digesters did not constitute a net contribution of biogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.”
S. EPA, Appendix N. of Revised Framework for Assessing biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources, November 2014, pg. N-25. In Appendix N. of the Framework, entitled Emissions from Waste-Derived Biogenic Feedstocks, EPA calculated negative Biogenic Accounting Factors (BAF) for various examples of treatment of landfill gas via collection and combustion. EPA explains, “Negative BAF values indicate that combustion of collected landfill gas feedstock by a stationary source results in a net CO2e emissions reduction relative to releasing collected gas without treatment.”
US EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units; Final Rule [Emission Guidelines for EGUs], 80 FR 64885. “[T]he use of some biomass-derived fuels can play a role in controlling increases of [in] CO2 levels in the atmosph The use of some kinds of biomass has the potential to offer a wide range of environmental benefits, including carbon benefits.”
US EPA, Emission Guidelines for EGUs, 80 FR 94855. Types of waste-derived biogenic feedstocks may include: landfill gas generated through decomposition of MSW [municipal solid waste] in a landfill; biogas generated from the decomposition of livestock waste, biogenic MSW, and/or other food waste in an anaerobic digester; biogas generated through the treatment of waste water, due to the anaerobic decomposition of biological materials; livestock waste; and the biogenic fraction of MSW at waste-to-energy facilities.
NWRA and SWANA believe the final PSD Revisions document should follow the approach to waste-derived feedstocks enshrined in the Final Clean Power Plan, and as recommended by the SAB, and ensure that waste-derived biogenic CO2 is treated as carbon neutral. Based on EPA’s own lifecycle assessments for the Renewable Fuels Standard program, its U.S. GHG Inventory, and confirmed by the SAB, EPA has sufficient analysis to support exclusion of selected categories of biogenic emissions from PSD permitting, including those from managing landfill gas and organic components of MSW.
The EPA does not seem to consider the regulatory treatment of biogenic CO2 from stationary sources to be a key issue in the context of the PSD revisions rule, based on a comment found in a Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language. Instead, the EPA continues to believe this rulemaking to establish a GHG SER under the PSD program is not the appropriate venue to address the broader concern of the regulatory treatment of biogenic CO2 from stationary sources.
The Associations strongly disagree and are concerned that because EPA remains silent on this important issue, some permitting authorities might improperly require landfills to incorporate biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD permitting process. Historically, few landfills triggered PSD because non-methane organics emissions rarely reached the threshold. However, if biogenic CO2 emissions become subject to PSD, many landfill projects, which are “anyway sources” due to renewable energy projects, would also be forced to do BACT analysis for GHG. Biogenic CO2 is emitted from:
From the perspective of developing new renewable transportation fuel or energy projects, subjecting biogenic emissions from landfills to PSD could be an enormous barrier. The Associations would like the EPA to clarify in its final rule that the emissions of biogenic CO2 from treating or controlling landfill gas does not increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but instead, has positive emission reduction and climate benefits. Failing to clarify this important point could subject landfills to significant permitting delays and increased costs that will result in no meaningful emission reductions.
Questions? Contact SWANA, NWRA, Patrick Sullivan, or your local SCS office.
On Friday, Dec. 16, 2016, President Obama signed The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act or the “WIIN Act.” Section 2301 of the WIIN Act allows states to establish permit programs to regulate the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) units in lieu of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CCR regulations and published at 40 CFR 257, Subpart D, also known as the federal CCR rule, that were effective as of October 19, 2015.
Under the federal CCR rule, enforcement has been through citizen suits brought under Section 7002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Following WIIN, for CCR disposal facilities operating under an approved permit program, citizen enforcement will be replaced by more traditional state and federal enforcement authorities. It will take time for states to apply for permit authority and to issue permits, and in the meantime the federal CCR rule will continue to be enforced by citizen suits, and utilities will be subject to potentially conflicting interpretations of what is required to comply at a given facility.
Other CCR-related highlights from the WIIN Act include:
The WIIN Act that was passed by the U.S. Congress on Dec. 10, 2016, is based on CCR legislation that has been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate in various forms over the past 6 years with the support of many in the utility industry. The WIIN Act has been lauded by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and utility groups alike.
For example:
“This new permitting authority fixes the main problems with the recent coal ash regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, by removing citizen suits as the sole means of enforcement and allowing states to tailor permit requirements on a case-by-case basis.”
“The coal ash language will ensure that states have the authority and flexibility they need to regulate coal ash while protecting the environment as much as the current EPA coal combustion residuals rule,” said APPA Vice President of Government Relations and Counsel Desmarie Waterhouse.
Coal Ash Language Backed by APPA Is Headed to President’s Desk
“…these legislative provisions will enable states to be more involved in the permitting process for the closure of basins.”
EII Applauds Passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act
“The bill also injects greatly needed certainty into the regulation of coal ash by giving states clear permitting and enforcement authority and reducing litigation, while providing for its continued beneficial use.”
SCS Engineers will continue to track the WIIN Act and provide you with updates as states consider and make known their approach to developing a CCR permit program, or not.
For questions about the Act or more information, please contact:
Mike McLaughlin, PE, Senior Vice President
Eric Nelson, PE, Vice President
Steve Lamb, PE, Vice President
Kevin Yard, PE, Vice President
Or contact your local SCS Engineers office.
SCS Engineers provides a free guide to the most common environmental reports due at the federal and state levels. Each guide includes an overview of the reporting due along with the date each state requires submission.
When SCS says free, we mean it. No need to submit your company name, no endless email trail will follow; these are free guides to download and share with others from the compliance experts – SCS Engineers.
Click to download or share each state guide:
If your state is not listed, contact the nearest SCS office to speak with a compliance professional in your area and in your business sector; SCS is nationwide.
If you have questions or need help sorting out details such as which reports apply to your business or step-by-step support on how to prepare your reports in the states listed above, contact our regional professionals.
Learn more about Ann
Ann O’Brien 1-773-775-6362
Learn more about Cheryl
Cheryl Moran 1-608-216-7325
Getting a firm handle on a solid waste operation and expenses is a challenge for any solid waste agency manager or landfill operator. It is particularly imperative in this era of “lean and mean” budgets and looming regulatory policy. Doing more with less is the watchword for most operations across the country still reeling from the financial impacts of the Great Recession.
SCS Engineers has created a package of articles to help you identify if your landfill, landfill gas, or solid waste operation is ready for 2017. We hope this useful guidance will help you plan for the upcoming year. SCS professionals are always available to answer questions and provide advice. Find the office or SCS professional nearest to you by clicking on one the links here: Offices and Professionals.
Download, print or share this package by using the download button under the articles or by using the navigation at left. The package includes the following information written by SCS National Experts:
Article in Waste360: explains who’s impacted and how to begin managing the costs.
SCS Technical Bulletin: a digest of hundreds of EPA regulatory policy into the information and timelines to act on now.
Article: strategic financial planning to support infrastructure costs.
Call our compliance specialists – find the office nearest you or email us at
SCSeTools® gives you the ability to instantly map air leaks, vacuum distribution, wells that are “over pulling” and wells that are underutilized – valuable tools for every wellfield technician to maximize system performance beyond simple compliance tracking and reactive wellhead tuning.
As a field technician, you walk a fine line – tuning to a threshold, pulling as hard as you can, as safe as you can. When important data factors start to wander you need to troubleshoot quickly to keep collecting as much as gas as possible without over compensating and adjusting wellheads multiple times. SCSeTools® makes troubleshooting faster and more efficient by turning your data into maps identifying important conditions in the field and the wellheads that need tuning. Field technicians know how to balance the wellfield without killing bacteria and without diluting the gas.
A map of your field with your specific tuning range quickly shows data that are typically missed in reams of data. SCSeTools alerts you to these indicators using a map of each wellhead in the wellfield. Where you formerly needed months for these changes to become apparent, SCSeTools tells you at the touch of a button when a change began occurring and which wellheads are impacted. As a technician you know what you need to tune and which wellheads need your attention.
Using SCSeTools pick any parameter that the GEM collects and create custom ranges or use specified guidelines to quickly identify trends throughout the landfill. Tuning ranges can be adjusted to specific conditions found at individual landfills. Smooth a saw tooth collection pattern and learn from your data for maximum vacuum and maximum collection without risk.
Last year Tom Barham, SCS Engineers’ General Counsel and Field Services Construction Director made headlines at SCS with his admission to the United States Supreme Court Bar. We are extremely proud of Tom!
This month Tom had the opportunity to have lunch with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as part of a fireside chat sponsored by the Association of Corporate Counsel. The discussion was led by Ted Olsen, a former Solicitor General of the United States who has argued 62 cases before the Supreme Court.
Justice Ginsburg was remarkably open and candid about her career and generous with her advice, including sharing advice from her mother in law on how to have a successful marriage, which she noted as “the best advice she ever received.”
As a pioneer in women’s rights and civil rights in America, Justice Ginsburg was involved in many important cases as an advocate and a judge. Asked about which cases stood out, she recalled a case challenging Virginia Military Institute’s (VMI) male only cadet policy. She noted that this was one case Mr. Olsen lost 7-1 and the one vote he got was from Justice Scalia who was already was on VMI’s side and needed no more advocacy to secure his opinion. (According to Mr. Olsen, RBG is known for her “wicked sense of humor”.) The case was memorable not for its legal precedent, but because of correspondence from the family of a female cadet. The female cadet’s father, a Marine and VMI graduate, wrote Justice Ginsburg to thank her for helping to create the opportunity for his daughter to attend VMI.
Subsequently, another letter from the daughter arrived with a Keydet pin which the daughter received upon graduation. The pin traditionally is given to the mother of the graduate, but since the cadet’s mother passed away before her graduation, the cadet sent it to Justice Ginsburg explaining that the Justice was like the grandmother to her and all future generations of female cadets. Justice Ginsburg keeps the letter and pin on her desk at the Supreme Court.
On how to have a successful marriage, Justice Ginsberg’s mother in law advised that it is best sometimes to be deaf to things you don’t want to hear, and handed her a pack of earplugs. Justice Ginsburg explained she has found that advice very helpful, choosing to be deaf to unpleasant things sometimes said.
“When you think about it, it was remarkable to have an opportunity to have lunch with a sitting Supreme Court Justice,” said Tom. “I even had an opportunity to ask for her advice on teaching fundamentals of the Constitution and our legal system to the international students in the class I teach in the University of Maryland Graduate School of Civil Engineering. Maybe I can get The Notorious RBG to guest lecture next semester?”
About Tom Barham
Mr. Barham is SCS Engineers General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Construction Services. He is a member of the Virginia and District of Columbia bars, and holds a degree in building construction. He has over 30 years of experience in construction and construction law.
Mr. Barham provides SCS Field Services with expertise in construction management, including procurement, scheduling, budgeting, and estimating, as well as other contract formation and administration activities.
Mr. Barham has directed several full service (design/build) projects and has been involved in numerous projects such as Landfill Gas (LFG) collection systems (blower/flare stations, extraction wells, horizontal collection trenches, header lines, and condensate collecting/containment systems); groundwater pump and treat systems (stripping towers, recharge galleries, groundwater wells, deep recharge wells, collection/distribution piping, and pump stations); bio-treatment facilities (containment areas, moisture/nutrient application, and soil mixing); underground storage tanks (excavation, testing, triple rinse, and restoration); soil vapor extraction systems (cat/ox treatment facilities, vapor extraction wells, collection header lines, and air make-up wells).
“This program directly supports the county’s Roadmap to a Sustainable Waste Management Future by helping businesses to implement recycling programs,” says Leonard. “And not only recycling but waste reduction, as well, all of which, of course, contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, resource management and sustainable materials management.”
Read the article about L.A. County’s Plan for Sustainable Waste Management
Corporate Headquarters
