Conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) is important to avoid significant financial risks for buyers and lenders. Inexperienced or unqualified consultants might overlook critical issues, making it vital to choose qualified environmental consultants. We recommend interviewing consultants to discuss project needs and assess their expertise to understand how they handle potential challenges.
It is essential to ensure the consultant’s qualifications. This process includes checking their educational background and professional certifications, such as Professional Geologist (PG), Professional Engineer (PE), and Certified Environmental Professional (CEP).
The ASTM International E1527-21 standard, effective in early 2023, is the current industry benchmark for Phase I ESAs. These assessments serve two primary purposes: due diligence — identifying potential contamination in real estate transactions, and liability relief — aiding purchasers in qualifying as bona fide prospective purchasers (BFPPs) to avoid liability for existing contamination.
To gain recognition as a BFPP, compliance with the All-Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Rule is necessary. A Phase I ESA conforming to the current EPA-approved ASTM standard demonstrates this compliance.
Under Federal Law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) holds current property owners liable for environmental contamination in all but limited circumstances, even if the contamination occurred before their ownership. In some states, like New Jersey, claiming the Innocent Purchaser Defense requires additional assessment work.
Risks of Inadequate Phase I ESAs
The case of a financial institution versus an environmental consulting company underscores the risks associated with an inadequate environmental site assessment. The financial institution suffered considerable monetary loss due to an incomplete historical review, which failed to detect signs of contamination. Additionally, the property owner lost both the functional value of their property and the right to legal action against the assessment contractor, as they were not designated as “users” in the environmental report, facing potentially millions in cleanup costs.
A report from the USEPA released three months after the property transaction confirmed radioactive contamination on the site, previously utilized for hazardous material processing. Despite historical cleanup efforts, extensive radioactive contamination remained, with records dating back decades. This contamination significantly devalued the property and increased liabilities for the property owner and the financial institution.
For several months, the property owner delayed informing the financial institution about the contamination and related legal action. A new environmental consultant hired by the property owner estimated remediation costs to be between $4 million and $30 million. The property owner defaulted on their loan from the financial institution 33 months after its initiation, with a remaining balance of $3 million. Subsequently, the financial institution obtained a new appraisal for the property, which indicated an “as is” value of zero dollars.
Key Recommendations:
Risks of Using an Inexperienced Consultant
In the T&K Realty case, the environmental consultant performed a Phase I ESA for T&K Realty but failed to identify an underground storage tank despite evidence of a potential tank location. The consultant installed monitoring wells on the property as part of a Phase II ESA. During sewer line construction, workers found and uncovered a tank. They discovered a monitoring well drilled through the tank, releasing its contents. The tank, located next to a garage that serviced motor homes and other vehicles, contained volatile organic compounds like dichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloroethene, methylene chloride, trichloroethene, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, toluene, trimethylbenzene, xylenes, solvents, and petroleum constituents. Complicating matters, the consultant used the sewer contractor to try to remove the tank, resulting in the contractor spilling most of the remaining contents on the ground. The release and subsequent spill resulted in groundwater contamination.
T&K Realty had to pay the costs incurred by NYSDEC, the costs to investigate the contamination and remediate the site, and legal costs. These costs amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Key Recommendations:
Conducting a Phase I ESA has become customary, but one should never underestimate its value. Collaborating with a qualified and competent Environmental Professional (EP) to ensure compliance with ASTM standards and the AAI Rule is essential. Failure to meet these requirements in a Phase I ESA could jeopardize the purchaser’s liability defenses.
Recognized Environmental Conditions – Best Practices
In the case of TC Rich vs. Shah Chemical Corporation (Shah)[1], an interesting situation arose regarding the recognition of a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) during two separate Phase I ESAs conducted at separate times.
In the initial Phase I ESA TC Rich performed in 2005, they identified only one REC before purchasing the property and concluded that there was no contamination after soil sampling.
However, in 2015, TC Rich conducted another Phase I ESA to secure a loan. This time, the Phase I ESA identified the prior operations of Shah as a REC and initiated a Phase II ESA. The Phase II ESA revealed Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination in soil, soil gas, groundwater, and even indoor air within the property building, consistent with discharges from Shah’s historical operations.
As a result, TC Rich initiated legal action against Shaw to recover toxic cleanup costs for the property, future cleanup costs, past damages, and attorney fees.
Importantly, TC Rich asserted that they neither caused nor contributed to the hazardous substance discharge on the property and had no prior knowledge or reason to believe that the property was contaminated. TC Rich took civil action against Shah for future cleanup costs and neither caused nor contributed to the contamination, leading to a settlement. If necessary, TC Rich could have used the “innocent landowner” defense under CERCLA.
Key Recommendations:
Conducting thorough Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) is essential for uncovering and addressing potential environmental contamination and conditions linked to properties. Inadequate ESAs, often resulting from inexperienced consultants, can have significant financial and legal consequences for the owner, borrower, and/or lender. This is exemplified in various cases, including those detailed herein, which involved a major financial institution, an environmental consulting firm, and situations like T&K Realty and TC Rich.
Compliance with the AAI Rule is an important first step to qualify for the Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser defense under CERCLA, thus helping parties avoid financial liability for contamination caused prior to their ownership.
In summary, compliance with ASTM E1527-21 and the AAI Rule is essential for due diligence efforts to ensure legal protections and the performance of a thorough risk assessment to maintain confidence in real estate transactions, especially in urban and industrial areas with an environmental history.
References:
SCS has a group of national experts working with all offices in North America to provide in-depth knowledge based on decades of experience supporting clients’ environmental needs. These resourceful people provide a wealth of information and guidance to support sustainable solutions in the industries SCS works in and with other professionals. Clients depend on the combination of SCS professional expertise, SCS leadership, and our roster of National Experts who consistently bring value to each solution. With the expanded leadership, SCS’s third generation can create even more sustainable solutions to environmental challenges. The firm announces its newest national experts as follows:
Anaerobic Digestion – Erik Anderson, PhD, is a Senior Project Manager. He has 14 years of engineering and process design experience in the renewable fuels sector, including anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis to syn-gas generation, and zero-liquid discharge technologies. He has worked on projects from initial concept development through front-end engineering design and construction management. His work includes modeling renewable energy technologies for economic comparison or life-cycle analysis. He is the inventor of several U.S. patents related to bioenergy and served as commissioner on the National Biodiesel Accreditation Committee from 2014-2021.
Brownfields Grants – Melissa Schick’s expertise includes preparing successful brownfields grant applications, helping public and private-sector clients navigate state and federal brownfields redevelopment and voluntary cleanup programs and closeout requirements, implementing and completing brownfields redevelopment projects, coordinating and communicating with all stakeholders.
Clean Air Act & NSPS – Josh Roth, PE, is a Project Director with the Landfill Gas (LFG) practice, serving on many LFG engineering projects involving LFG remediation system design, emissions inventories and air permitting, migration and odor control, ambient air sampling and reporting, LFG and CER due diligence projects, GHG emission mitigation and reporting, field sampling and assessments, and general emissions control projects. Roth regularly publishes and presents at industry and regulatory events, often appearing in client webinars, and leads one of SCS’s internal “University” training sessions monthly.
Elevated Temperature Landfills – Bob Dick, PE, works on civil and environmental engineering projects related to solid waste management. He has worked on over 25 major landfill multi-task assignments and performed over 150 landfill gas projects – some of the toughest in the US. His work involves landfill gas migration control, odor control, emissions control, Clean Air Act compliance, energy recovery and utilization, and carbon credit monetization. Dick is part of the SCS team that developed technical standards for the largest waste operator in the U.S. to implement in active and future disposal cells to prevent the formation of ETLF conditions in landfills. He incorporates these standards into the best management practices of landfill management teams globally.
Odor Management – Paul Schafer. Many of today’s waste management strategies and facilities lower GHGs. They, along with agricultural production, can emit odors. SCS has two National Experts to address industrial needs. Schafer leads Ambient Air Monitoring Services and plays key roles in significant national monitoring efforts. He has in-depth experience in interfacing with regulatory agencies regarding the performance of monitoring systems, source emission tests, and odor assessments, as well as with federal and state agencies regarding monitoring programs and air quality impact assessments, particularly for agriculture.
Odor Management – Patrick Sullivan, BCES, CPP, REPA. Sullivan is SCS’s National Expert for Clean Air Act (CAA) programs and leads the firm’s GHG, Sustainability, and CAA services. With over three decades of experience, he is often sought after to mitigate odors and analyze potential exposure for solid waste and industrial facilities. Sullivan is also a Senior Vice President and Principal-in-Charge for air quality permitting and compliance projects, GHG emissions, and climate change. Pat is a Harvard-degreed scientist, a Registered Environmental Property Assessor, Board Certified Environmental Scientist, a Certified Permitting Professional in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and an accredited Lead Verifier under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) AB 32 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) programs.
Sustainable Planning – Steven Stewart, PE, PMP. Stewart is responsible for project development and client account manager for those with a sustainability focus. He has more than two decades of experience within the Environmental Consulting and Manufacturing Industry, providing strategic thinking related to project planning, regulatory strategy, and developing sustainability initiatives. Stewart leads projects related to energy efficiency measures, GHG reduction, carbon sequestration, water reuse and stewardship, and solid waste minimization and recycling programs. He has managed and performed permitting and compliance audits, developed environmental management systems, long-term environmental planning, and environmental sustainability capital projects. His background includes serving as Environmental Manager and Capital Projects Portfolio manager at a large steel manufacturing facility.
Over the years, SCS expanded and hired many talented people. They guide the firm, maintaining the founders’ focus and culture of adopting their clients’ environmental challenges as their own and fostering a culture of success for employees and communities.
The firm has won multiple awards for helping clients minimize waste generation, effectively managing recycling, collection, and disposal operations, renewable energy, safely cleaning up contaminated properties, protecting wastewater and groundwater, and cutting GHG emissions.
These employee-owners are most proud of the difference they make for their clients and communities as trusted partners. SCS clients entrust the firm with managing more than 35 million metric tons of anthropogenic CO2e greenhouse gases yearly. SCS collects and beneficially uses or destroys enough to offset greenhouse gas emissions from 7.4 million passenger cars annually. That’s more than any other environmental firm in North America.
Carbon credits can be a reliable and lucrative source of revenue for organic waste management facilities in addition to more traditional revenue sources. Voluntary carbon credits provide compost and anaerobic digestion facilities with an additional source of income, complementing tipping fees and sales of final products. Carbon credits are issued, bought, and sold in carbon markets in a broader effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Action Reserve (CAR) establishes carbon credit standards, guidelines, and values (Climate Reserve Tonnes or CRTs).
Participation in voluntary carbon markets, mines, landfills, compost facilities, and anaerobic digestion facilities can generate additional revenue while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Is your project eligible for carbon credits?
There are two main types of carbon markets: regulatory and voluntary. Regulatory carbon markets require mandatory participation. Voluntary carbon markets provide carbon offset credits for qualifying products that effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a baseline level. Each voluntary market defines its baseline and qualifications for offset projects. Offset credits can then be sold. Within voluntary carbon markets, eligible organic waste management and landfill projects can participate in generating carbon credits.
Project developers can enter into purchase/sale agreements and single-year or multi-year partnerships with buyers to secure evaluated carbon prices. The project developer does not need to guarantee credit quantities, as the brokerage assumes responsibility for managing the credits over a specific period and guarantees a price per credit. The brokerage markets any amount exceeding the agreed-upon price per credit to potential buyers. This option provides more long-term pricing stability.
Climate Action Reserve (CAR)
CAR is a nonprofit organization that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through market-based policies and solutions. CAR serves as an approved Offset Project Registry (OPR) for the State of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program and is integral in supporting the issuance and administration of compliance offsets.
CAR also establishes standards for voluntary offset projects in the North American voluntary carbon market. It operates as a publicly accessible registry for carbon credits generated under its standards. CAR has eight voluntary offset protocols for waste handling and methane destruction projects in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. They assist, advise, and register clients with voluntary offset projects.
SCS has partnered with clients to pursue voluntary offset projects in Organic Waste Composting and Organic Waste Digestion protocols. Contact SCS Engineers at or Greg McCarron on LinkedIn to learn how your project may qualify.
Series: Part II – Planning and Development of a Public Compost Facility
Series: Part III – Climate Action Reserve Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol
Geologic Media for Carbon Sequestration and Deep Well Injection Projects – Always Building UIC Knowledge
SCS Engineers provides turnkey underground injection control (UIC) services for the deep injection and permanent geologic storage of liquid waste (Class I UIC) and carbon dioxide (Class VI UIC). The ability to interpret and correlate deep well logs is fundamental to developing the geologic site characterization and subsurface modeling components of our deep well injection and carbon sequestration projects. We ultimately use the data gathered from these logs to construct geologic maps, cross sections, and static geologic models during the pre-permitting and permitting phase of these UIC projects. This allows us to explore optimal injection strategies for safe and efficient projects.
Recently, a group of scientists from the SCS Carbon Sequestration and Deep Well Injection Team gathered at our office in Wichita, Kansas, to attend a three-day course on deep well log interpretation and correlation. Dr. Ali Jaffri, the CEO of Applied Stratigraphix, a Denver, CO-based consulting and training firm, led the course. They offer a variety of training workshops and field courses focused on subsurface geologic interpretation, primarily for oil and gas industry geologists.
The course covered topics including:
The course devoted considerable time towards getting hands-on experience working together on interpreting and correlating well logs, including logs from our current UIC project areas, and discussing how we can apply the concepts we learned in other regions. We highly recommend this unique training for geologists in carbon sequestration.
We never stop learning, innovating, and sharing.
SCS is incorporating the content from this course and other published resources into developing updated and refined standard operating procedures for producing geologic deliverables for our deep well injection and carbon sequestration clients. As our subsurface geology team continues to expand as we meet the needs of this rapidly growing market, we are committed to operating as a high-performance team to provide quality geologic deliverables to our clients on every project.
Kacey Garber arranged the training event, contact her on LinkedIn for more information.
Learn more about Carbon Sequestration and UIC here.
Nicole Vogelpohl and Eva Luu attended the “Meet the Regulators” event hosted by A&WMA’s Golden West Chapter at the law firm Holland & Knight in San Francisco. It was an informative event where panelists Dr. Meredith Bauer, Hy Hinojosa, and Lisa Fasano, in for Viet Tran, from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), spoke about upcoming priorities, new organizational changes, current organizational issues, and project accomplishments. The three have recently been appointed new deputy executive officer positions at BAAQMD. They are open to taking things in a new direction regarding the permit process, communications with the public, and implementing new and upcoming methodologies for emerging analytical measurement technologies.
Environmental Justice and Air Quality
The panel discussed how, as we’ve learned and made continuous progress in air quality and local emissions reductions over the years, ozone (O3) is now less of a concern (for the Bay Area) compared to PM2.5, which now takes higher precedence as a pollutant of concern. Dr. Bauer and Lisa Fasano mentioned that in the grand scheme of things, we live in a region of great air quality; however, they acknowledge that while the greater San Francisco Bay Area has good air quality as a whole, there are always pockets of localized air pollution that need addressing. Areas specifically pointed out were marginalized communities, such as Bayview/Hunter’s Point and West Oakland. Coincidentally, SCS is currently involved in a project related to the SF Fire Department’s Training Facility moving from Treasure Island to Hunter’s Point. The goal is to ensure the air quality during their training burns will not have long-term downwind effects on the community.
Thorough Discussion Amongst the Panelists and Attendees — Permitting Backlog Issue
The current permitting system needs to be faster, and the backlog of processed permit applications poses challenges for new clients. Attendees expressed frustration and shared testimonies about their clients moving to different states due to the extensive permitting backlog and timely process, which has ultimately halted the emersion of some new regulatory technology and projects in the state. The regulators understand the current system needs reworking and prioritizing to ease and reduce the turnover time of the permit process.
Enlightening and Enjoyable
Hearing the regulators speak passionately about their roles, goals, and investment in the organization was truly pleasing. Thanks to Pat Sullivan for knowing and having worked with everyone we talked to; everyone said hi and spoke highly of you! At “Meet the Regulators,” we connected with stakeholders from local consulting firms, attendees from the petroleum, tech, and waste management industries, and regulators – or, as Dr. Bauer renamed the group, the communicators, to help bridge the gap between the governing board and the general public.
Additional Resources
The Community Change Grants Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), administered through the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR), has several unique characteristics to advance environmental and climate justice, many of which are responsive to feedback and input the agency has heard from communities. The NOFO will be open for a year, closing on November 21, 2024, and the EPA will review applications on a rolling basis. This allows applicants to utilize technical assistance and possibly resubmit a new application if not initially selected. EPA encourages applicants to apply as early as possible.
OEJECR will also host multiple informational webinars while the NOFO is open, with the first being held on December 7, 2023. These webinars will address questions, and some may facilitate the formation of partnerships and information sharing. More information on upcoming webinars can be found on EPA’s Inflation Reduction Act Community Change Grants Program webpage.
Community Change Grants will deliver 100 percent of the benefits of this program to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. This program also dedicates $200 million of Inflation Reduction Act funding to provide technical assistance to applicants and grant recipients, which will enhance the ability of disadvantaged communities to access resources for environmental and climate justice activities. The activities to be performed under the grants are expected to fall under the following categories:
Environmental engineers, consultants, and scientists at SCS devise and implement solutions for pollution, energy consumption and emissions reductions, land remediation, water/wastewater treatment, and waste management. For assistance with Community Change Grants, contact or visit SCS’s Brownfields and Voluntary Remediation site.
SCS Engineers announces that the firm’s Board of Directors elected Doug Doerr as President and Chief Executive Officer. James J. Walsh, the current President and CEO, will turn over his responsibilities to Doerr on January 1, 2024.
Doerr, a Senior Vice President, has over three decades of professional engineering experience spanning the firm’s solid waste and environmental services practices. He brings strategic direction and operations experience as SCS’s geographically largest Business Unit Director. Doerr also serves on SCS’s Board of Directors and was one of the founding principals of Aquaterra Environmental Solutions, Inc., which merged with SCS in 2013.
A Professional Engineer in six states, Doerr earned his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and his Master of Business Administration at the University of Kansas. He serves clients in North America by providing technical expertise, primarily in the solid waste management and utility sectors.
As an engineer and consultant, Doerr prides himself on providing environmental solutions to address clients’ technical and regulatory challenges by understanding the business, economic, and social drivers that frame each challenge. Over his career, he has successfully implemented hundreds of environmental solutions that involve studies, permitting, compliance, and design across multiple market sectors for public and private clients.
“Our deep bench of engineers, scientists, consulting professionals, and environmental technicians are employee-owners who drive SCS as one company, keeping us sustainable for over 50 years. From our client’s perspective, our stability and holistic expertise bring a wealth of resources to achieve their goals,” says Doerr.
Walsh will continue to serve as Chair of the Board of Directors and assist Doerr as he transitions into the CEO role. Walsh also plans to spend more time on technical and client work as an expert witness, an authority on elevated temperature landfills, and an expert in the solid waste industry.
Under Walsh’s 22-year tenure, SCS Engineers and its specialty practices, SCS Field Services, SCS Energy, and SCS Tracer have grown tremendously. Walsh, senior executives, and the Board of Directors feel 2024 is an opportune time for the transition.
“We have a stellar reputation, we’re financially healthy, our Employee Stock Ownership Plan is strong, and we have the next generation of leadership ready to lead the company into the future,” states Walsh.
SCS Engineers’ environmental solutions and technology directly result from our experience and dedication to industries responsible for safeguarding the environment as they deliver essential services and products. SCS Engineers has captured or beneficially used more greenhouse gases than any other environmental engineering firm in the U.S. Please visit our website for a greeting from our CEO elect, or watch our video to see what we can do for your business and community.
This year’s annual Illinois Manufacturers Association Environment and Energy Conference attracted many attendees and presenters from industry, consultants, and regulatory officials. Notable takeaways included a passionate appeal from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to be patient and proactive on permitting issues as the agency expands its workforce to support Illinois manufacturers’ economic growth and expansion plans. IEPA notes that they seek a partnership with industry rather than an antagonistic relationship and strongly support the state’s development while acknowledging they are bound to federal regulations. The more timely, accurate, and clear permit applications can be prepared, the faster the approval process.
Clean Air Act Changes
Major focuses of the IEPA remain on tracking current and proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which currently designate East St. Louis and Chicago areas as non-attainment zones for ozone and portions of Madison County as non-attainment zones for sulfur dioxide. Proposed reductions in the allowable limits for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 micrometers (µg/m³) under the Clean Air Act, which could go into effect at any time, will result in the designation of additional non-attainment areas in Illinois and, accordingly, far greater difficulty in air permitting for new or expanding facilities. The current annual average primary standard for PM 2.5 is 12 µg/m³, whereas the proposed standard will likely fall to between 9-10 µg/m³.
Permitting and Enforcement of NPDES
Presenters also noted that in Illinois, the IEPA issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits rather than the USEPA. However, USEPA can still issue enforcement violations. Furthermore, many wastewater treatment plants have pre-treatment effluent requirements for industrial users to address potential pollution problems as part of their NPDES permits. These requirements will become increasingly strict when/if PFAS are declared a hazardous substance under CERCLA.
Extended Producer Responsibility
Another noteworthy topic was the burgeoning practice of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Much like RCRA, which requires cradle-to-grave tracking of hazardous materials, EPR deals with tracking non-hazardous materials, such as packaging, from creation through disposal with the goal of reducing landfill wastes via industry-subsidized source reduction and recycling programs. While Illinois is not currently one of the six states (California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, New Jersey, and Washington) with mandated EPR or equivalent laws, multiple bills proposed in Illinois and elsewhere would require these types of programs for many market segments. Manufacturers are considering what steps they would need to take if a similar bill passes in Illinois. Particularly noteworthy is that these laws apply to states where products are distributed, not merely produced.
Sustainability and Decarbonization in the Energy Sector
Finally, presenters from various energy companies and consulting firms spoke about the path forward for sustainability and decarbonization in the energy sector, noting that it must combine natural gas, nuclear power, and traditional renewables like wind and solar to meet customer needs. SCS’s very own Dr. Charles Hostetler spoke on carbon capture methods (such as geologic sequestration of carbon in Class VI wells) and other operational strategies of manufacturers, electric utilities, solid waste facility owners/operators, and other property owners/developers to address the evolving landscape of environmental regulations.
Industry/Manufacturing Essentials
Keep close tabs on new legislation and regulation changes to assure compliance and avoid costly fines or operational delays. Partnerships with environmental consultants who have strong, established relationships with federal, state, and local agencies and have their finger on the pulse of the environmental landscape are the best way to accomplish your goals as the regulatory scene changes.
About the Author: Rachel McShane, LEP, has over 15 years of experience in environmental due diligence projects (Phase I, II and III Environmental Site Assessments) as well as Brownfields redevelopment, risk-based corrective action, and remediation projects. She is familiar with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessments, vapor investigations and mitigation, radon, asbestos, lead-based paint surveys, and leachate monitoring/solid waste management. Reach Ms. McShane at or via LinkedIn.
By proactively complying with regulations and completing a progressive assessment process, remediation contractors can avoid project delays and minimize the risks of improper soil transfer. While soil remediation in situ is preferable, it is not always possible.
Assessing and managing regulated waste soil and “clean” or inert soil is an important element in construction and demolition. To succeed, it’s necessary to understand the regulatory and legal framework regarding proper soil transport and disposal in a development setting and to develop best practices to avoid the risk and liability of shipping contaminated soil to unauthorized destinations.
Naturally occurring metals such as arsenic can be elevated because of regional geologic sources that exceed regulatory screening levels and disposal standards. Are these hazardous wastes? That depends on the concentrations of the chemical constituents or metals in the soil. Properties with previous land use often show concentrations of these constituents in the soil below hazardous waste levels but high enough to designate certain soils as regulated nonhazardous waste. Contractors must dispose of or recycle this soil at a properly licensed facility or face heavy penalties.
If your project requires importing and exporting soil, follow Environmental Consultant Keith Etchells’ advice in this C&D Magazine article to keep compliant with regulatory agencies and costs low during soil disposal.
About the Author: Keith Etchells is a professional geologist and hydrogeologist with 22 years of experience assisting clients in managing environmental risks associated with ownership, transfer, or operation of commercial, industrial, and waste disposal properties. His particular technical expertise involves aspects of groundwater science and engineering relevant to contaminated sites and landfills designing analytical, geotechnical, and hydrogeological data collection programs to complete subsurface assessment and land remediation. Reach out to Keith on LinkedIn or at .
In response to a significant decrease in salmonid fish populations in urban streams, including several listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), several West Coast organizations conducted studies to evaluate the cause. In 2020, a culprit was identified – a breakdown compound commonly found in tires: 6PPD.
6PPD (N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine; C18H24N2 CAS 793-24-8) is an additive in the manufacturing of both natural rubber and common synthetic rubbers such as butyl rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber. It is a highly effective anti-oxidant. In layman’s terms, it helps tires resist degradation caused by exposure to oxygen, ozone, and fluctuating temperatures. According to the US Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA), all USTMA members use it (USTMA website, 15 Aug 2023).
Recent studies have shown that the reaction of 6PPD in rubber tires with the oxygen and ozone in the air generates transformation products, including storm (6PPD-q; 2-((4-Methylpentan-2-yl) amino)-5-(phenylamino) cyclohexa-2,5-diene-1,4-dione; C18H22N2O2; CAS 2754428-18-5).
As tires wear, tire wear particles (TWP) and fragments containing 6PPD-q can be carried by stormwater runoff from roadways and parking lots to aquatic environments, such as salmonid spawning streams.
For instance, recent studies indicate that 6PPD-q present in such waters may be acutely toxic to coho salmon, including juveniles. A study by Tian and others indicates that 6PPD-q toxicity to coho salmon ranks among the most toxic chemicals for which the US Environmental Protection Agency has established aquatic life criteria.
Subsequent studies indicate that 6PPD-q exhibits large differences in species sensitivity, with reduced toxicity to steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, and brook trout. No mortality was observed with sockeye salmon, chum salmon, Atlantic salmon, brown trout arctic char, and white sturgeon. Regardless, the impacts on coho salmon and other species may be significant.
Many questions remain unanswered before we better understand the environmental and toxicological impacts of 6PPD-q and develop potential solutions. Ongoing efforts include the following:
Whether 6PPD-q contamination will become a significant issue outside spawning regions of coho salmon and other ESA-listed fish species remains to be seen. Bioaccumulation in higher-order animals may also be an issue; more research is underway.
About the Authors:
Jeff Marshall, PE in five states, is a vice president and the practice leader for the Environmental Services Practice for SCS offices on the eastern seaboard. He also serves as the SCS National Partner for Innovative Technologies and Emerging Contaminants. He has a diversified background in project engineering and management, with emphasis on the environmental chemistry and human health aspects of hazardous materials/waste management, site investigations, waste treatment, risk-based remediation and redevelopment, and environmental compliance/permitting issues.
Dr. Shane Latimer, CSE, is an SCS vice president. He is an environmental planner, ecologist, and toxicologist with three decades of experience in environmental assessment, planning, permitting, and implementation. His specialty is developing projects that challenge the interface between the built and natural environment, such as solid waste facilities, oil and gas infrastructure, mines, sewage treatment facilities, and similar developments. Solutions for these projects often require careful assessments of alternatives, impacts, and opportunities to successfully navigate the applicable public regulatory processes (e.g., NEPA, local land use, etc.) and ensure environmental integrity.
Corporate Headquarters
