If you are buying or selling a property with a history of soil or groundwater contamination in Wisconsin, the state’s Department of Natural Resources requires vapor intrusion pathway screening. The screening is also necessary when buying or selling a property adjacent to a property with soil or groundwater contamination. Is this analysis necessary?
The screening is essential; vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater may transfer to indoor air, causing health risks. The vapors may or may not have an odor. Screen testing and analysis will determine their existence and the level of concentration. Most commonly levels are low, and no additional action is necessary. If beyond the threshold determined safe by your state, some mitigation may be required before purchase.
It is not a simple matter to apply an individual state’s current regulatory guidance to determine the need for vapor intrusion mitigation. The actual intrusion, or expected intrusion in the case of new buildings, is often overstated, and some regulatory agencies use screening values for indoor air chemical concentrations that are at or below levels commonly found in buildings. The slightest error in sampling technique can dramatically affect the resulting data.
SCS offers the full array of vapor intrusion services for residential, commercial, and industrial properties, and for developers, municipalities, lenders, attorneys, industrial facilities, tenants, landlords, and buyers and sellers of real property.
Contact SCS at 1-800-767-4727 or email us at .
Question about this blog, please email one of the authors Robert Langdon and Thomas Karwoski.
SCS has offices nationwide to serve our customers. To learn more about vapor mitigation, please visit the SCS website here: https://www.scsengineers.com/services/hazardous-waste-and-superfund/vapor-intrusion-mitigation-systems.
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation released a report concluding that: a significant amount of additional food waste processing capacity will be required to achieve national, state, provincial, and local food waste diversion goals. The report also emphasizes the need for local decision-making in selecting and implementing those food waste diversion programs.
…a significant amount of additional food waste processing capacity will be required to achieve national, state, provincial, and local food waste diversion goals. The report also emphasizes the need for local decision-making in selecting and implementing those food waste diversion programs.
The report goes on to say that interest in recovering food waste from municipal solid waste is growing to meet goals established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture, but many major metropolitan areas lack the infrastructure to manage the ability to meet the established goals. Two examples were cited:
Several states, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, condition their food waste diversion requirements on the ability of generators to access adequate capacity within a certain distance.
Speaking as SWANA’s Executive Director and CEO David Biderman stated:
We believe that Americans need to rethink how food is handled before it is considered waste, to divert it into programs to feed people, and to find other productive uses for food as food. Once it becomes waste, however, municipal decision-makers, working with their processing partners, need to determine how to best manage the material.
The SWANA report focuses on the effects of food recovery at the two lowest tiers of the hierarchy – composting and landfilling/incineration. The report concludes that food waste diverted from landfill operations has the potential to be processed at composting facilities. Then, going on to say that anaerobic digestion (AD) and co-digestion at wastewater treatment facilities are also likely destinations for diverted food waste.
Jeremy O’Brien, Director of the Applied Research Foundation, noted:
The food recovery hierarchy does not apply universally; an analysis of greenhouse gas impacts based on local data and conditions is needed to identify the best food scraps management options for a specific community.
The report encourages solid waste managers to perform a life cycle analysis of economic and environmental costs and benefits based on local needs, system capabilities, and data to identify the most effective ways to manage food waste at the local level.
SCS Engineers and SWANA are both long-time advocates for local decision-making in establishing programs to collect and manage municipal solid waste.
Related articles:
Can Computer Technology Enhance Safety and Environmental Protection?
Just when you thought we had gone as far as we could, now there is remote monitoring and control technology. Did you know that you can have live access to monitor equipment and data in real time from your living room? You can see how fast pumps are running or what temperature or flow rate you have at your flare. You can access live video feeds from cameras and actually see inside your flare station or storage area. Notification of unplanned shut downs can be set up. You can be notified on your mobile device when something goes wrong. The technology exists to remotely start flares when they shut down. Imagine eliminating a three-hour drive to restart a flare. Not only do you save time and money, but you avoid a potential environmental impact or fine. This is cool stuff.
Remember, whatever technology you use or plan to use, make it user-friendly. Most people resist change, and the ability to use technology varies among employees. Generation X’s and Millennials tend to understand and use computers and mobile devices more effectively than some Baby Boomers. If you want your technology to work for everyone, take a slow and defined approach to implementing the use of technology. Provide training to explain what the benefits are, and how to do things step by step. Develop written procedures that can be accessed when people become confused or forget how to do things. These measures will help others welcome the introduction of technology in the workplace. Set employees up for success. Identify employees that are well suited to use technology, and consider empowering them to assist others. As technology use grows, develop IT positions to support your efforts.
Technology is continually improving; this is a good thing. Despite these advances, try to monitor the changes you make. Try not to fall victim to continually changing the way things are done. Allow time for people to understand and use the tools they have. Consider user abilities and develop updates that are necessary or enhance your process. Include end user employees in the technology development process. Keep in mind that technology, in most instances, solid waste industry included, should support workers and operations, and not the other way around.
Contact Michael Knox or continue to read his entire article here.
Technology in the solid waste and landfill gas industry.
About Michael Knox
For over 30 years, Mr. Knox has participated in projects ranging from clearance of unexploded ordnance (UXO) from military impact ranges to construction and management of waste treatment and disposal facilities. Currently, he performs compliance audits of SCS operations. His experience in environmental safety, construction, and remediation is exceptional in terms of both field and administrative application. He often serves as the primary interface between federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and SCS project teams.
In addition to his work as a compliance auditor, Mr. Knox is a Project Manager in Florida. In this role, his responsibilities include the execution of contracts, plus management oversight and coordination of all field operations; including landfill gas collection systems at numerous landfills.
Operational expenses such as replacing collection vehicles, considering and implementing recycling programs, and the impact of stricter environmental regulatory programs can all affect collection fees and the quality of service. Strategic business planning solves the ongoing process whereby an organization determines where it is going… plus how it will get there, and what tools and resources it will use.
The City of Killeen recently worked with SCS Engineers to create a 20-year master plan with modeling capabilities to determine the optimum scenarios that benefit the surrounding communities and one that helps manage environmental safety and the outlay of capital before the expense of planning, designing, and building begins. Population projections, demographics, cost and historical data, among other resources, make up the information that is then organized and analyzed to prepare projections based on changing scenarios over a period of years. This type of economic study enables the planning team on any proposed project to provide a “what if” analysis for the decision-makers with the potential impact a proposal may have on customer rates and fees.
The collaborative effort between the City and SCS has culminated in a long-term financial roadmap and planning tool, which evaluates the impact of operational expenses and provides a basis for planning capital expenditures. The plan is already in use by the City’s decision-makers to determine the efficiency of investing in equipment and a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) as part of a waste management plan. Key outputs of this study included the justification for the City’s acquiring new collection equipment and further assessment of the feasibility of implementing single-stream recycling.
This type of business analysis requires technical expertise in the many aspects of waste management. You’ve got to dig deep into the conditions that present a financial, environmental, or quality challenge to managing wastes in order to deliver a system that is serviceable for decision-makers to use for many years.
By Michelle Leonard, Solid Waste Planning and Recycling; Sustainability
National Expert
The term describes the desired end-state and a call-to-action rethinking what we regard as trash as potentially valuable resources. The overall goal of zero waste planning is to establish the goal of diverting at least 90 percent of the waste generated by all sources from a landfill.
Zero Waste is to:
Communities across North America have embraced the concept of Zero Waste, some by adopting a Zero Waste goal or policy, and others by completing a Zero Waste Plan. The plan includes implementing zero waste programs and infrastructure in a manner most sustainable for the community. Many communities establish a long-term goal of Zero Waste by setting interim goals to achieve and benchmark measuring progress. Goals may be quantified over years, by percentages, or by environmental factors relevant to your community.
There are several factors critical to sustainable Zero Waste programs.
Phasing in programs encourages acceptance of new policies, programs, and facilities, and the behavior modifications that come with them. Instead of continuing to focus on results at the end of the process, we find ways to fulfill the equation “waste = resource” within our industrial and societal systems. This mindset change helps to lead us to more systems that eliminate wastes to the environment, avoiding systematic deterioration of the environment. These systems are modeled by nature as the most efficient, less costly, and most profitable ways to move toward Zero Waste.
Programs that contribute to Zero Waste include upstream policies and programs. Over 71% of the waste generated happens before products and materials enter our homes, offices, schools and institutions. Upstream policies and programs aim to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and materials and promote low-impact or reduced consumption lifestyles.
Producer Responsibility is an upstream activity, including advocacy at the state level and implementation of local ordinances for hard to handle materials, such as pharmaceuticals, sharps, batteries, CFLs. Local jurisdictions can support state legislation for Extended Producer Responsibility for materials such as carpet paint, etc.
Downstream programs aim to ensure the highest and best use of products and packaging at the end of their useful lives. They establish a hierarchy of:
Managing these materials will most likely require a combination of facilities which may include:
The issue of how Waste to Energy fits into a Zero Waste system has been a hotly debated topic at many Zero Waste conferences, workshops, and planning sessions. The Zero Waste International Alliance includes in its definition “no burning or burying”. However, even the most aggressive, advanced Zero Waste system will still have some residual materials, and these materials will need to be managed. Some cities that have adopted Zero Waste plans and/or policies include waste to energy in their strategic plans. These cities recognize that Zero Waste policies and programs will achieve a high diversion rate, but they also acknowledge that a portion of the waste stream residuals will need to be disposed or processed. For these cities, waste to energy, or another alternative technology facility will fill that need, and will further reduce the use of landfill disposal.
Learn more about Sustainable Materials Management
A Florida county conducts a pilot project to gauge its ability to manage yard trimmings
and biosolids using internal resources – and to confirm marketability of the finished
compost.
Read the Biocycle article by Beth Schinella and Bruce Clark
Infrastructure Week (May 16–23) is a national week of events, media coverage, education, and advocacy efforts to bring the state of the nation’s infrastructure to the attention of all Americans. Forester Media, the publisher of MSW Management magazine, is an Infrastructure Week affiliate. John Trotti, MSW Managing Editor recently surveyed Jim Walsh, P.E., BCEE, President and CEO of SCS Engineers and long-time friend of the magazine on the topic. Jim is first out of the blocks to answer the four questions John asked of respondents from MSW and Forester’s other publications, Business Energy, Erosion Control, Grading & Excavation Contractor, Stormwater, and Water Efficiency.
MSW Management (MSW): Which infrastructure projects should be given priority? Roads and bridges? Dams and levees? Water supply? Electrical grid? Waste management?
James Walsh (JW): Typically public safety, cost, and benefit determine the priority for infrastructure projects, and different political jurisdictions have different priorities. Where highways and bridges are new but waste management facilities are old, the priority might be waste management facilities, and vice-versa. Some types of infrastructure are more amenable to private sector solutions, which can allow the government to focus on other types of infrastructure. The trend in waste management, for example, has been to rely on the private sector in the last decade
Each segment faces difficult challenges; the most significant is funding. Waste management does not necessarily have priority over other projects, but has progressed by regionally identifying the infrastructure necessary. Thus, each region avoids the pitfalls of competing for funding with other regions and other projects.
SCS Engineers focuses on waste management, but there are opportunities to interact with other segments in sustainable ways. For instance, we have energy clients who supply coal ash to specialty cement companies who use it to make “green” cements that last longer in applications such as road construction. We design and construct facilities that take the byproduct gases from the decomposition in landfills to generate electricity reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, or directly use the gas for energy to power wastewater plants simultaneously cleaning and conserving water. We find ways to safely redevelop contaminated property supported by existing infrastructure, thus reducing the need to build new infrastructure.
In short, we work toward helping clients find sustainable solutions to infrastructure projects.
MSW: Is there a solution to long-term infrastructure funding?
JW: With respect to the waste management infrastructure, waste systems require significant capital investment in land, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure. While many governments have decided to rely on private industry instead of financing new governmental facilities, others have become much more sophisticated in adopting private sector approaches to financing. Pro-Forma Economic Life-Cycle Models can assist governmental entities to identify the critical variables that can impact the success of an infrastructure project. Moreover, economic models evaluate how various components of a waste system and variable assumptions integrate together into a sensible approach. Pro Forma Economic Models allow for a careful analysis of the life-cycle costs and potential revenue sources and identify factors that will influence the waste system costs and demonstrate how to adequately and equitably fund the system. These Models provide different scenarios and eliminate options that are not financially feasible or do not fit a region’s short- and long-term needs or priorities. Sensitivity analysis can be conducted to understand better the impact these variables have on capital costs, operating expense, and the overall system economics. By assessing the economic and regional benefits first, we can focus on designing and building infrastructure solutions that are safer, longer lasting, and affordable. Other benefits include adjusting the Model if there is a major change in the commodity market, such as plastics’ recycling is experiencing now and when considering the use of new technologies.
Every industry segment and every region have a different blend of socio-political conditions, geography, and monetary resources—we assess and design to their particular needs. Adopting new waste management technologies, such as anaerobic digestion or waste diversion, as part of an overall waste management program can be integrated into the Model to study how, and if, they sensibly integrate within the existing program. New technologies are typically more expensive than mature technologies such as recycling facilities and landfills, but that condition alone is not why they are considered valuable to a region. The framework considers elements key to integrating anaerobic digestion for example into a long-term program. Capital investment, a significant centralized source of high-quality organic waste, power costs and economic utility incentives, limited land suitable for composting, lack of conventional waste-to-energy facilities, or a ban on organics disposal in landfills are some of the considerations.
Many states are developing organics diversion initiatives, discouraging or banning organics from landfills; they will want to develop separate capacity for diversion within their overall program to build a sustainable plan for the long-term. In some states there is plenty of environmentally sound landfill capacity, recycling facilities have adequate capacity, and the socio-political climate has different ideals. What works in Iowa might not be suitable for California.
MSW: What kind of harm is the current state of our infrastructure doing to the economy and the community?
JW: Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers releases a “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” depicting our nation’s infrastructure condition and performance. In a traditional school report card format, individual infrastructure segments are assigned letter grades—solid waste has the highest grade of B- in the most recent report published in 2013. The waste management infrastructure in the United States is robust, diverse, and significantly supports our economy and communities by providing safe and cost-effective management of the materials that we discard on a daily basis.
MSW: What can various government entities—from local to Federal—do to attract private sector support and investment?
JW: In the United States, private solid waste facilities manage 75% of the municipal wastestream. The waste management industry has many examples of public/private partnerships and significant investment by the private sector. Just look at firms like Waste Management Inc., Republic Services Inc., Waste Industries, Waste Connections, WCA Waste Corporation, Covanta, and Wheelabrator, which own and operate numerous landfills, compost facilities, waste-to-energy facilities, transfer stations, processing facilities, alternative technologies, and hauling companies. These facilities require significant private investment. Allowing private industry to participate in the management of waste management infrastructure brings needed fiscal discipline and accountability to the overall waste system infrastructure.
The private sector is attracted to markets that are predictable and that provide an appropriate return on investment. Jurisdictions with a reputation for making sudden unpredicted changes in regulations that adversely affect the return on investment will find it difficult or impossible to attract private sector support.
The waste management sector and SCS Engineers have seen our share of magic technologies that are literally too-good-to-be-true, yet somehow attract governmental support both financial and otherwise. It is fine for government agencies to provide grant support for research related to promising new technologies, but adopting an unproven technology as the sole means of waste management is inviting a public health crisis. Private sector investment is not attracted to jurisdictions that have unrealistic expectations.
About James Walsh, PE, BCEE, President and CEO of SCS Engineers
Jim has worked at the forefront of sustainable waste management for more than 40 years. He has authored numerous publications, technical support documents, presentations for the USEPA, US DOE, the Gas Research Institute while serving the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA), and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF), among others.
Taken as a whole, mixed MRFs have operated well since their reincarnation in the early 1990s and continued refinement through today. The sorting technology, which has been evolving for the last 25 years, has been proven to work and is reliable. Complete, pre-engineered integrated systems have been available now for years from a growing selection of established companies dedicated to the solid waste industry that can provide planning, engineering, manufacturing, controls, and startup, whether for new facilities, or retrofits of existing older facilities.
With that said, the following conclusions are offered for consideration:
Contact the authors: Bruce Clark and Marc Rogoff
Dr. Dale W. Daniel, an Associate Professional with SCS’s Oklahoma City office, recently published a summary article of his dissertation research through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project. The primary goal of the research was to provide under-standing of the potential climate mitigation services provided through wetland conservation and restoration in the High Plains region of the United States. Focus was placed on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wetlands and adjacent upland landscapes as well as identifying some of the drivers of GHG flux that are influenced by various land management practices. The project also sought to understand how sediment removal from wetland basins influenced Carbon and Nitrogen content as well as Carbon sequestration services.
In 2007, the Society for Ecological Restoration International (SER) stated that global climate change is a real and immediate threat that requires action, and ecological restoration is one of the many tools that can help mitigate that change (SER 2007). However, recent debate within the conservation science community has arisen concerning whether restoring ecosystems for C offset projects may shift focus away from other important benefits to society (Emmett-Mattox et al. 2010). Indeed, not all ecosystem restorations make viable ecological offset projects for industries seeking to reduce their C emissions, and those that do, may not always occur in areas where restoration funding is needed the most. This study demonstrated that management practices focused on restoring natural landscape functions, including native species plantings and basin sediment removal, can increase climate mitigation services provided by wetland and upland ecosystems within a region heavily impacted by land use change.
By Ali Khatami, Ph.D, P.E., SCS Engineers National Expert
Leachate seeping out of a landfill slope can be a major issue during the active life of a landfill, and waste operators undertake significant efforts to control and manage it. Uncontrolled seeps can cause soil erosion on the slope, odor issues, and unpleasant scenery on the landfill slope which is visible to adjacent public roads or properties. Leachate can also travel beyond the liner boundaries into perimeter ditches.
Leachate also can seep below the final cover, and that causes a different set of problems. Leachate seeps below final landfill covers are rarely discussed because of the general consensus that they become inactive after construction of the final cover system. That may be true under certain conditions, but very often, leachate seeps remain active as long as the source of water remains active and continues discharging through the seep locations. Leachate seeps below final covers can potentially:
If the final cover geomembrane is not welded to the bottom liner geomembrane, leachate seeping to the toe of the slope can reach the landfill perimeter ditch and contaminate the surface water, or it can percolate into the ground and cause ground water contamination that may be detected in nearby groundwater monitoring wells. Leachate seep also may enter the perimeter berm structure and saturate the berm to the point that the stability of the landfill slope becomes a concern.
If the final cover geomembrane is welded to the bottom liner geomembrane, the only way to address the accumulation of leachate under the cover at the toe of the slope is to open the geomembrane, remove the leachate, and close the geomembrane again. However, this process does not solve the seep problem, which will continue to recur.
SCS has designed various leachate toe drain systems to collect and dispose of leachate that flows below the final cover geomembrane. Leachate toe drains have become a standard feature in the final cover designs for some of our clients who have experienced the benefits of the system.
If you have leachate seep issues at your landfill, please contact SCS. We can develop a design specific to your landfill and the conditions at your facility. We also provide construction recommendations and a preliminary cost estimate for implementation of the system. SCS has extensive experience with the permitting of these systems; we prepare modification applications for permitting purposes and obtain approval from the state regulatory agency. SCS can also prepare the construction plans. We also offer design-build options, employing our SCS Field Services Construction group to construct the system, which often can be a cost-effective way to implement your system.
Questions? Contact Ali Khatami, PhD, PE, LEP, CGC, is a Project Director and a Vice President of SCS Engineers. He is also our National Expert for Landfill Design and Construction Quality Assurance. He has nearly 40 years of research and professional experience in mechanical, structural, and civil engineering. Dr. Khatami has acquired extensive experience and knowledge in the areas of geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, hydraulics, construction methods, material science, construction quality assurance (CQA), and stability of earth systems. Dr. Khatami has applied this experience in the siting of numerous landfills and the remediation of hazardous waste contaminated sites.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
