Join SCS Engineers at Green Technology’s Sustainable Facilities Forum on May 9 at the Scottish Rite Masonic Center in Sacramento, CA.
The conference will highlight strategies, best practices and technologies behind successful public sector facility projects. The event includes access to education sessions, live keynote, annual leadership awards presentations and to the sustainable products and services displays.
The concurrent sessions offer insights from the experts and practitioners at the leading edge of green progress, in fields ranging from transportation and energy to funding, architecture and green schools. Stroll through the exhibit space and discover dozens of green products and services all in one place. Find out what’s new and get an intensive, hands-on education that’s not available anywhere else!
The Forum is designed for public and private sector professionals engaged in facility project design, decarbonization, water conservation, electric vehicle and electric vehicle infrastructure.
Check the conference site for more details and information.
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:
This protocol applies to greenhouse gas reduction projects that divert eligible organic waste or agro-industrial wastewater streams that otherwise would have gone to uncontrolled anaerobic storage, treatment, and disposal systems (solid waste landfills, onsite anaerobic wastewater treatment facilities, etc.).
Projects that involve co-digestion of eligible organic waste streams with livestock manure are also eligible if they comply with the Livestock Project Protocol, diverting waste to a biogas control system (BCS). The protocol accepts several technologies, including:
Project Eligibility
The protocol stipulates the following requirements:
Project Exclusions
Protocol excludes the following activities:
Project Outcomes
A project is eligible to receive credits for ten years from the start date or until project activity is required by law. Applications for a second 10-year eligibility period are available. Only two AD facilities have registered with the Climate Action Reserve (CAR). CAR has awarded these projects a total of 224,655 CRTs, valued at approximately $700,000. In 2022, CAR awarded 22,257 CRTs to these projects. At a market price of $3.00/CRT, 22,257 CRTs have a value of $66,771.
Credit Feasibility
Understanding the technology and navigating protocol requirements can take time and effort. That’s where we come in. Contact SCS Engineers at or Greg McCarron on LinkedIn to learn how your project may qualify.
Additional Resources
Conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) must navigate the complexities of fees versus liability to provide crucial services. Balancing these aspects is essential for mitigating future liabilities while ensuring thorough assessments during due diligence.
Environmental consultants face significant risks during Phase I ESAs. The potential environmental liabilities discovered often exceed the fees and profits from these assessments. Inadequately performed ESAs or overlooked environmental issues have led to substantial financial consequences for firms, sometimes amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. This highlights the importance of thoroughness and accuracy in these assessments to mitigate risk and protect the environment, the borrower or lender, and the consulting firm.
According to LightBox EDR’s historical data[1], the average fee for a Phase I ESA rose 11% from 2018 to 2023, with costs ranging between $1,400 and over $7,500. These variations reflect factors like the assessment’s complexity and the property’s characteristics.
Report writing consumes the most hours in Phase I ESA-related tasks, LightBox EDR reports. The average hours per report across all aspects is twenty-five. A $75/hr. Consultant preparing the report costs $1,875, compared to $150/hr. Consultant at $3,625, not including profit and direct costs like travel, historical research fees, and regulatory fees. Investing more in a comprehensive ESA may be more cost-effective than missing a significant environmental issue.
Choosing a sub-$3,000 consultant for a Phase I ESA, regardless of the property’s apparent simplicity, could increase risks. Even straightforward properties can present unforeseen environmental challenges, affecting assessment accuracy and the project’s timeline and cost.
Firms conducting Phase I ESAs must adhere to professional standards like ASTM E1527-21 or local standards. Failing to meet these standards can lead to liability for missed or inadequately assessed environmental conditions.
The cost of a Phase I ESA reflects the required research and analysis, including a review of historical records, site visits, and potential environmental risk evaluation. Costs vary based on the expertise needed, especially for properties with complex histories or significant environmental issues and legacies.
Despite having professional liability insurance and contractual limitations of liability, firms can face significant business disruptions due to the time and expenses involved in litigation from oversights or inaccuracies in assessments.
Paying more for a Phase I ESA often results in a more comprehensive assessment. Higher fees enable exhaustive research, advanced technology use, and specialist engagement, leading to a thorough understanding of the property’s environmental status.
The fee for a Phase I ESA should align with the property’s specific complexities and risks. Industrial properties or those with hazardous material histories require more intensive assessment and review than simpler sites. However, low-risk sites can also reveal hidden environmental issues during assessments.
For example, a Phase I ESA on a rural property without apparent issues can become complex due to external factors like a neighboring gasoline tank leak. Such situations highlight the need for comprehensive and well-funded assessments to evaluate a property’s environmental status accurately.
The unpredictable nature of environmental risks emphasizes the importance of thorough and adequately funded Phase I ESAs to identify and address such risks effectively.
The implementation of ASTM E1527-21 in February 2023 introduced new considerations. This standard clarifies All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) requirements and brings more precision to the assessment process. It mandates historical records for industrial properties, specific photographic and mapping requirements, and land title records detailing environmental liens or Activity/Use Limitations.
A notable update in E1527-21 is the approach to emerging contaminants. Until classified as a federal CERCLA hazardous substance, emerging contaminants like PFAS and PCB-containing building materials are optional in Phase I ESAs. This standard evolution reflects the dynamic nature of environmental assessments, where the cost of a Phase I ESA is a strategic decision to mitigate liability risks. Consequently, contaminants like PFAS and PCB-containing building materials, while not mandatory, can be included as a ‘non-scope consideration’ at the discretion of the Phase I ESA user.
While higher costs often lead to more thorough and reliable Phase I ESAs, balancing these costs with the property’s specific needs and risks is vital. The goal is a comprehensive understanding of environmental risks and conditions that support cost-effectiveness.
Investing more in a Phase I ESA is an investment in quality, risk management, and long-term cost-effectiveness, benefiting both the client and the consulting firm.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments 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.
Partial reprint of EPA’s Announcement dated January 11, 2024
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced a proposal to strengthen Clean Air Act standards for large facilities that burn municipal solid waste. If finalized, the updated standards would reduce emissions of nine pollutants, including smog- and soot-forming sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, by approximately 14,000 tons per year, improving air quality for overburdened communities living near these facilities. These proposed standards reflect current technologies available to control pollution in a cost-effective fashion.
The proposed standards would apply to 57 facilities with 152 units that have the capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. Nearly 4 million Americans live within 3 miles of these large facilities, which are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color.
The proposed standards are based on emission levels achieved by the best controlled and lower-emitting sources, and limit emissions of nine pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins/furans.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to evaluate these standards every five years in order to take into account developments in pollution control technologies and techniques. EPA last revised these standards in 2006.
After accounting for compliance costs of the rule, EPA estimated the net present value of health benefits from the proposed rule, due to reductions in particulate matter and ozone alone, to be up to $14 billion over 20 years. Reductions of mercury, lead, and other hazardous air pollutants required by the proposal are expected to result in additional unquantified economic and public health benefits.
EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA will hold an informational webinar and will announce details on its website shortly.
Additional Resources:
Join SCS Engineers stormwater professionals, including our National Stormwater Expert, Jonathan Meronek, at StormCon 2024, August 27-29 at the Grand Sierra Resort and Casino in Reno, NV.
StormCon 2024 is the stormwater industry’s premier event connecting stormwater and surface water managers, erosion control specialists, and engineers from around North America for idea-sharing, information exchange, and networking. Featuring a multi-track conference program led by top leaders in the industry, StormCon 2024 provides exceptional opportunities to learn, engage and build key contacts. Topics this year may include:
The StormCon 2024 conference provides plenty of networking opportunities, certification courses, and an exhibit hall.
Click for more conference details and registration information.
At USCC 2024 Dave Aldridge of the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority and Greg McCarron of SCS Engineers present Planning and Development of a Public Compost Facility based on a compost facility and programs when disposal capacity is nearing its limit.
The Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority (SCRRRA) is the waste management and recycling authority for its twelve member municipalities. Since 1984, SCRRRA has been responsible for implementing solid waste recovery systems, and coordinating recycling and disposal services. Due to the closure of a major waste-to-energy facility in July 2022, Connecticut has a shortfall in disposal capacity that has resulted in an estimated 860,000 tons of municipal solid waste being shipped out of state for disposal, mostly to landfills. SCRRRA estimates that disposal tipping fees will exceed $100 per ton in the near future.
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection’s Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy recommends implementation of organics collection programs and processing facilities, in an effort to manage waste within the state. Aldridge and McCarron’s presentation covers the planning and development steps taken by SCRRRA to permit and build a regional compost facility that will accept food and yard waste. The proposed facility will accept organic material from all of its member towns and regional businesses, and produce a high-quality soil amendment for farmers and gardeners. SCRRRA will also provide finished compost, at reduced cost, to disadvantaged communities in the region, for community gardens and beautification projects.
Planning and Development of a Public Compost Facility covers the following topics:
1. Regional waste landscape.
2. Permitting and execution of an aerated static pile (ASP) pilot test.
3. Preparation of a feasibility study and pro forma.
4. Site options and considerations.
4. Local site permitting, and,
5. Next steps, including design and construction.
About Aldridge & McCarron: David Aldridge is the Executive Director of the Southern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority responsible for implementing solid waste recovery systems, recycling, and disposal services in twelve Connecticut municipalities with a population base of 230,000. Dave has been the Executive Director of SCRRRA for over 12 years, responsible for all financial, administrative and operational functions of the Authority using his 25 year background as a logistics industry executive responsible for transportation and distribution with expertise in process improvement and operational efficiency.
As a Vice President, Greg McCarron is responsible for overseeing SCS’s nationwide organics management practice. He works closely with SCS’s national and regional clients, completing projects covering all aspects of solid waste management, including composting and anaerobic digestion. Typical these include designing, permitting, constructing, and operating compost and anaerobic digestion systems and facilities for public and private clients. His experience includes operations, project management, design, permitting, regulatory support, construction oversight, system start-up, economic analysis, and technology assessments. Reach out to Greg at m or on LinkedIn.
Both speakers are engaged with many associations, coalitions, and committees focusing on leading edge waste management in the U.S. including the US Composting Council.
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.
Corporate Headquarters
