Engaging With Your Stakeholders and Public Outreach is Part II of our four part video series.
Geologic sequestration can be seen as an incredible public good that reduces greenhouse gas and protects the health and wellness of generations to come, or a local risk. It’s likely you will receive questions and concerns from the public and other stakeholders during your project’s lifecycle. You can use an effective stakeholder engagement plan to help you anticipate and respond to those questions and concerns.
Watch the Geologic Sequestration webinar to learn how to engage your key stakeholders in a supportive, consistent way that demonstrates your commitment to the community and builds trust. Geologic sequestration is an EPA-approved technology companies are exploring to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In this chapter you’ll learn:
If you’re ready to explore the benefits of geologic sequestration and want to educate the public and stakeholders about the safety and sustainability of Class VI underground injection control wells, watch Richard Southorn’s video to learn more, or contact your local SCS office for a consultation.
Richard Southorn, PE, PG, serves as Project Director in our Chicagoland office. He manages coal combustion residual (CCR) and municipal solid waste projects, ranging from construction plan development to full-scale design services. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, Michigan, Indiana, Hawaii, Oregon, and Georgia; and a licensed Professional Geologist in Illinois and Delaware.
Additional Resources:
To a wastewater treatment engineer, at least during workdays, it seems like everyone is talking about forever chemicals, all of the time. There’s a good reason for that, because the huge group of man-made chemicals has climbed in priority to be at the top of most wastewater treatment regulatory considerations. Forever chemicals are also known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and have rapidly become the latest of the emerging contaminants in drinking water to be treated. So, while there is still a lot of toxicology research to do, PFAS destruction and even which PFAS actually needs to be addressed, there is very little doubt regarding the future need to treat PFAS in landfill leachate and other wastewaters. Everyone is in agreement, the environment needs to be protected from forever chemicals.
PFAS chemicals can withstand high heat without becoming unstable as well as repelling oil and water, making them ideal for inclusion in fire-fighting foam, lining non-stick pans, or water resistant clothing. But unfortunately, PFAS can persist in the environment – water, fish, humans, etc. – for a long time. So, having efficient and cost-effective methods of treating wastewater, drinking water, bio-solids, etc., to reduce/remove PFAS is becoming increasingly important. Luckily, some traditional and very available treatment methods are effective at treating PFAS as well as some newer, non-traditional treatment methods that appear to be promising.
One effective management technology is using deep injection wells to store the PFAS contaminated wastewater deep, far below drinking water sources and within high total dissolved solids groundwater. Deep injection wells are only allowed where the deep geology and subsurface conditions can allow for the PFAS wastewater to be contained where it is injected.
Additional management options are granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange (IX), which are adsorption treatment methods that use a media, through which the PFAS contaminated wastewater can pass, and the charged PFAS molecules become bound up in the opposite charged GAC or IX media.
Reverse osmosis (RO) and foam fractionation (FF) treatment methods use separation, either through very small pores in a membrane (RO) or applying aeration to create a PFAS concentrated foam (FF), to allow the treated, cleaner water to discharge the treatment process and the concentrate (RO) or foamate (FF) is left and can be dealt with more efficiently, because after treatment the concentrate/foamate is a much smaller volume than the original wastewater flow.
These PFAS management methods simply move the PFAS chemicals out of the way and don’t actually destroy the PFAS. PFAS destruction generally requires more effort and cost because high pressure and/or high heat are required to break the carbon – fluorine (C-F) bonds. A regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) or supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) are PFAS destruction methods that can be employed. An RTO typically operates at high temperature (e.g., 1,800 F) and SCWO utilizes both high temperature (>705 F) and high pressure (>3,210 psi) within a process to, again, break the C-F bonds. Electrocoagulation, advanced oxidation processes and plasma are also treatment methods that could be employed to destroy PFAS.
These are just a few of the many PFAS management and destruction options. It can be hard to decide what’s right for your project. That’s where SCS can help. We’re technology agnostic – so you can trust our recommendations are appropriate for your project and goals. Contact us today to learn more about what’s possible.
About the Author: Sam Cooke, PE, CEM, MBA, is a Vice President and our expert on Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment. He has nearly three decades of professional and project management experience in engineering with a concentration in environmental and energy engineering. Mr. Cooke works within SCS’s Liquids Management initiative to provide services to our clients nationwide.
Additional PFAS Management and Treatment Resources:
What if you could reduce your company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 1.5 to 2 million metric tons per year for the next 20 years?
Now you can, with carbon capture and storage technology. Watch the Illinois Basin Carbon Capture and Storage webinar to learn more. Carbon capture and storage is an EPA-approved technology companies are exploring to help reduce GHG emissions.
In Illinois and many other states, leading firms are submitting permit applications for Class VI underground injection control wells. It’s a great time to review the state of the practice and learn how this technology works and how it can help you meet your carbon reduction goals. In this video chapter, SCS answers these questions:
This technology is on track to transform how industry leaders like you manage greenhouse gas as a byproduct of modern life. Watch Charles Hostetler’s short video to learn more, or contact your local SCS Engineers’ office for a consultation.
Dr. Charles Hostetler has nearly four decades of experience as an engineer and hydrogeologist. He has diverse experience in coal combustion residue (CCR) and solid waste management permitting, design, and construction projects. His areas of expertise focus on supporting electric utilities, property owners and developers, solid waste facility owners and operators to meet demands for addressing environmental changes and impacts on their operations.
Additional Resources:
In degraded ecosystems, manipulating sediments can aid in recreating natural sediment processes, establishing suitable substrate conditions for aquatic life, and supporting the recovery of vegetation and wildlife. In the United States, sediment management revolves around the presence of contaminated sediment. Contaminated sediment sites pose intricate technical challenges that demand significant resources to address and mitigate the associated problems effectively.
Over the past three decades, significant progress has reduced the discharge of toxic and persistent chemicals into waterways throughout the United States. However, a persistent problem remains, characterized by elevated concentrations of contaminants in the sediment found at the bottom of rivers and harbors. The situation has raised considerable concerns about its potential risks to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans.
This paper delves into the technical challenges environmental engineers and consultants face in addressing and mitigating this issue, especially during waterfront remediation projects. Furthermore, he explores strategies to optimize resources to tackle the problem at hand effectively and efficiently.
Active monitoring and data collection is critical throughout the remediation process. These activities enable evaluating the chosen strategy’s effectiveness, identifying necessary adjustments, and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. Adaptive management approaches allow modifying or refining the sediment remediation strategy based on monitoring results and stakeholder feedback.
The utmost importance lies in choosing the appropriate remediation techniques; base the decision on site conditions, the specific contaminants present, and the desired remediation goals. After reading the paper, you may get a better idea of the options available for achieving effective and sustainable sediment remediation outcomes.
Dr. Hostetler will present “A Computational Modeling Approach to Critical Pressure Calculations for Class VI Area of Review Delineation” [Thursday, September 14, 10:30 – Noon, Session Class VI UIC] at the Groundwater Protection Council 2023 Annual Forum in Tampa.
Presentation Category: Carbon Capture and Underground Storage
Subsurface pressure increases as supercritical carbon dioxide is injected into a deep saline reservoir beneath a confining zone. If the pressure buildup is great enough, brine could be lifted upward from the injection zone through an inadequately plugged or abandoned well that penetrates the confining zone. This could result in the endangerment of an underground source of drinking water (USDW). A Class VI Injection Permit requires a delineation of the Area of Review (AoR). The AoR is the superposition of the area of the buoyant supercritical plume itself, together with the area over which the pressure front is large enough to potentially endanger a USDW through some conduit. The USEPA Class VI Guidance offers several approaches to calculating critical pressure. Some of these methods are based on concepts of changes in potential energy in artificial penetration and are very easy to implement. Unfortunately, they are simplified models and are also very conservative. The USEPA Guidance also allows for the computation of the critical pressure by computational modeling. We present a computational modeling approach that is more mechanistic, explicitly addresses uncertainty, can be updated as additional testing and monitoring data become available, and provides a more authentic representation of the critical pressure and hence, the AoR.
Dr. Hostetler has nearly four decades of experience as a geochemist and hydrogeologist. His expertise focuses on subsurface multiphase flow modeling, groundwater flow and transport modeling, and reactive solute transport modeling. Dr. Hostetler is an SCS Engineer’s Deep Well Initiative and Class VI Permit Team member. Charles Hostetler has a BS in Geosciences and a Ph.D. in Planetary Sciences from the University of Arizona.
Find out more:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), including their salts and structural isomers, as hazardous substances. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register designates two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively, PFAS) constituents as CERCLA Hazardous Substances. While this is a small subset of PFAS constituents, PFOA and PFOS are reportedly the most commonly used and likely to be detectable. Additional PFAS compounds are certainly on the horizon for consideration by EPA and, in fact, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued by EPA in April of 2023 to seek input for seven additional compounds for hazardous substance designation.
What Could This Mean For Property Transactions and Real Estate Development?
When the CERCLA hazardous substance rule becomes final (anticipated in 2023 or 2024), it will be mandatory to consider these PFAS constituents when performing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with a property. Because of the ubiquitous use of PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” in residential, commercial, and industrial products, some Environmental Professionals are concerned that PFAS-related RECs will be commonplace.
In their recent paper, “How Will EPA’S Proposed CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation of PFOA and PFOS Impact the Environmental Due Diligence Practice?” Jeff Marshall, PE, and Mike Miller, CHMM, discuss the anticipated impacts of the PFAS rule on environmental due diligence. Depending on the former uses, the number of RECs, and ESA results, some sites are more likely to feel the impact on the potential value of a property.
As our PFAS knowledge continues to evolve, so will applying this knowledge to the environmental due diligence practice and, ultimately, real estate conditions. Read the technical paper to understand the terminology and types of properties more likely at risk.
Jeffrey D. Marshall, PE – Vice-President. Mr. Marshall is a Vice President and the practice leader for the Environmental Services Practice for SCS offices in the mid-Atlantic region. He is also the SCS National Expert for Innovative Technologies and Emerging Contaminants. His diversified background is in project engineering and management, with an 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. He has over 40 years of environmental experience and directs and manages environmental due diligence projects in the mid-Atlantic. He is a chemical engineer, Professional Engineer (VA, MD, WV, NC, and SC) and meets the credentials of an Environmental Professional.
Michael J. Miller, CHMM – Vice President. Mr. Miller is a Vice President and the practice leader for the Environmental Services Practice for SCS offices in the Central region. He also serves as an SCS National Expert for Environmental Due Diligence. He supports firm operations throughout the United States related to Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments and the completion of large portfolios and complex site assessments. A Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM) since 2009, Mike has more than 28 years of experience in environmental management and consulting with an extensive background in RCRA-related matters and industrial compliance, planning, and permitting.
Additional Real Estate Resources:
Charm Industrial’s (Charm) $53M deal with Frontier to voluntarily sequester bio-oil underground is an example of early market leadership for alternative subsurface deployment methods in the negative carbon emissions market. SCS was instrumental in developing the pilot programs, initial testing, and regulatory approvals allowing Charm to scale up its processes and deliver on this commitment.
This deal will remove 112,000 tons of carbon dioxide by 2030. Charm’s method involves converting excess organic material, like corn stover, into bio-oil and putting that oil into abandoned oil wells.
Carbon capture has been a focus for Frontier for some time now. Prior to this announcement, they partnered with early-stage startups to remove 9,000 tons of carbon. This landmark deal is a continuation of Frontier’s efforts to spark growth and bring attention to the industry and is one of the largest legally binding agreements to date. SCS is thrilled for Charm and Frontier and this huge step forward. See the recent CNBC news article below for more information on this deal and its carbon offset impact.
As you may recall, in September 2022, EPA issued a proposed rule to designate two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and their salts and structural isomers — as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund.” EPA is currently reviewing comments received on this proposed rule.
On April 13, 2023, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) asking the public for input regarding potential future hazardous substance designations of additional PFAS substances under CERCLA. The ANPRM includes:
The ANPRM announcement in the Federal Register is available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-13/pdf/2023-07535.pdf
More solutions and information at Liquids Management.
EPA will hold three complementary competitions to strategically distribute grant funding under the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program. EPA will implement these programs in alignment with the President’s Justice40 Initiative and expects to open competitions for funding under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund by the summer of 2023.
The goal is to ensure that households, small businesses, schools, and community institutions in low-income and disadvantaged communities have access to financing for cost-saving and pollution-reducing clean technology projects. EPA aims to deliver tangible benefits, including lower energy costs, good-paying jobs, and improved public health outcomes to households, businesses, and communities. The three competitions will be:
EPA Feedback and Listening Sessions
EPA invites written technical feedback and comments on the competition descriptions as the Agency prepares the program for release as early as June 2023. Stakeholders may send their written feedback to by 11:59 pm ET on May 12. Over the next two weeks, EPA will convene six public listening sessions on this implementation framework. Listening session details and other information about the program are on the GGRF website.
Additional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Resources
Click to find an Earth Day event near you.
Take Action:
Play with ReFED’s interactive, fun, and educational tool!
Earth Day is a great time to remind you that food waste reduction is a top climate change strategy! As you’ll see in this addicting, educational, and fun ReFED tool – everyone helps make a difference. Every small change citizens and businesses make has a major impact on our planet’s health and well-being. Try it out and see how we are building solutions to reduce the 91 million tons of surplus food annually in the U.S.
The ReFED Insights Engine offers the most comprehensive examination of food waste in the United States by incorporating current data from a variety of sources, including public and proprietary datasets, expert interviews, case studies, and industry research. This powerful engine has several components, including:
Food Waste Monitor – A centralized repository of information built with data from more than 50 public and proprietary datasets and providing granular estimates of how much food goes uneaten in the U.S., why it’s happening, and where it goes.
Solutions Database – A stakeholder-specific, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of 40+ food waste reduction solutions based on a range of impact goals, plus detailed fact sheets on each.
Impact Calculator – An interactive resource that quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions reduction, water savings, and donated meal recovery potential of different food surplus management scenarios in the U.S. by sector and food type.
Capital Tracker – A dashboard to monitor the flow of capital into food waste innovation, allowing users to understand the landscape, identify key players, and plan out future funding strategies.
Use a reusable water bottle, drinking straws, and shopping bags.
Around 380 million metric tons of plastic are being produced yearly; that’s roughly the same as the entire weight of humanity. Approximately 91% of plastic is not recycled. Roughly half of our global annual plastic production is destined for a single-use product.
The average per person use is astounding; some can take 1,000 years to disintegrate.
Think of the money you’ll save along with planet Earth!
Corporate Headquarters
