By preparing site life calculations with knowledge of multiple approaches, we can proactively position solid waste systems to meet future needs. However, the simplest approach is often the most prudent when every variable is unknown.
The growing Florida population has greatly pressured all public infrastructure, including waste disposal services. Planning for these adjusted growth trends is paramount to a successful system that provides the community with essential services. By preparing site life calculations with knowledge of multiple approaches, we can proactively position solid waste systems to meet future needs. Don’t overlook having a thorough understanding of current disposal trends and airspace utilization as the starting point for planning the future success of a solid waste system.
In their Florida SWANA presentation, Kollan Spradlin and Fauve Herron focus on using three different landfill site life calculation methods that they have previously used to assess the remaining life of Florida landfills.
Two of the three calculation methods will use service area population projections to model future waste disposal. They will also discuss a third model that does not utilize population projections — The Remaining Capacity Method. Originally developed by SCS Engineers’ founder Bob Stearns, The Remaining Capacity Method relies on past tonnage and volume utilization data to forecast the future date at which available remaining volume will be depleted.
Their Site Life Calculations presentation will cover data requirements, the drawbacks and advantages of each method, the identification of errors, and model implications.
Presenters from the ENR-Ranked No.1 Firm for Solid Waste Management:
Kollan Spradlin, PE, CHMM and Fauve Herron, EIT
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:
Meet SCS Engineers coal ash and utility professionals in BOOTH 92 at The World of Coal Ash 2024 conference, May 13-16, 2024, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. SCS is also a Palladium level sponsor.
WOCA is an international conference organized by the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) and the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER). The 2024 conference is the 10th joint biennial meeting with a focus on the science, applications, and sustainability of worldwide coal combustion products (CCPs) as well as gasification products.
The call for abstracts will be announced soon.
For more information and registration, click here
We hope to see you there!
SOP, Version 50 10 7 for the Small Business Administration’s Standard Operating Procedures for Lender and Development Company Loan Programs effective on August 1, 2023.
On May 10, 2023, the United States Small Business Administration (US SBA) issued a long-anticipated informational notice regarding implementing their newest Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) under Lender and Development Company Loan Programs. According to this notice, the new SOP, Version 50 10 7, goes into effect on August 1, 2023. All lenders, certified development companies (CDCs), SBA employees, and applicants/borrowers of 504 and 7(a) loans will be subject to the changes therein at that time.
Today’s SCS blog provides critical guidance to entities needing environmental due diligence or other services under the auspices of US SBA programs.
The environmental policies of the SOP are contained within Chapter 5, Section E of the new SOP. One highlighted change from the previous version (10 5 6) is that these policies apply “only to real estate acquired, refinanced, or improved by the loan proceeds” and do not apply to collateral. For the commercial real estate subject to the program, the following summarizes the basic requirements:
The SBA SOP also has specific requirements for “Special Use Facilities,” which differ from other property types. The three categories of Special Use Facilities include child-occupied, dry cleaners, and gas stations. Of the three, the new version of the SOP contains a point of clarification pursuant to child-occupied facilities. It now explicitly specifies that all such facilities constructed before 1978 must undergo a Lead Risk Assessment (RA) and test all taps, water fountains, and spigots for lead in drinking water. The RA should be conducted within one calendar year of submission to SBA for approval and follow US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines.
As always, SCS aims to make the process of securing both conventional and SBA loans as painless as possible. Rest assured that we fully understand the program’s intricacies and are well-positioned to assist you with environmental requirements related to this program.
Meet Author Rachel McShane
Additional Resources:
Brownfield Properties: The Ins and Outs of Due Diligence and Investment
Author Megan Hente discusses the importance of environmental due diligence for purchasing brownfield properties. Brownfields offer opportunities to redevelop…
Will EPA’s Proposed Designation of PFOA and PFOS Impact Real Estate?
Jeffrey D. Marshall, PE, and Michael J. Miller, CHMM, discuss environmental due diligence and how the proposed CERCLA rule could impact the number of recognized environmental conditions…
Environmental Due Diligence and All Appropriate Inquiries
Today’s commercial real estate transactions must consider environmental issues. Complex laws can impose significant environmental liabilities on…
Published in Waste Management & Research, two of SCS’s most experienced MSW experts, Dave Ross and James Law, cover the MSW evolution and forecast conditions and practices to expect in the next 40 years. Their paper is a mix of facts and sage opinions highlighting some significant and interesting milestones as solid waste management transformed from the 80s to today’s rapidly changing infrastructure and processes.
Ross and Law close their article with speculations on how solid waste management might evolve further by 2063.
Additional Solid Waste Management 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.
Early one Saturday morning, SCSers Chuck Houser, Luke Montague, Allison O’Neal, and me, Jen Morton, headed out to Brawley in the Imperial Valley region of Southern California. That is the desert. We had been having our usual May Gray here in SoCal when the summer can feel like winter at the coast, but the desert was a balmy 100 degrees and sunny that day.
We met with Sean Wilcock of the Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation, one of our clients for Brownfields work, at a coffee shop in Brawley. From there, we ventured north to an area between Calipatria and Niland to see the beginning workings of a lithium extraction operation.
This region lies at the southern end of the San Andreas fault, where the motion between the North American and Pacific Plates begins to switch from strike-slip to extensional or from side-by-side to pulling apart. Where extension occurs, the crust tends to be relatively thin. Imagine pulling apart a sticky bun or taffy – the middle starts to get thinner before it breaks.
With the thinning of the crust, hot magma from the earth’s interior is closer to the surface. The heat from the magma heats the groundwater, which is A LOT beneath the Imperial Valley. And in this groundwater are minerals that, until recently, have not necessarily been worth the effort to extract from the water.
For decades energy companies have been using this super-heated water to generate electricity in the Imperial Valley. The hot water is pumped up from deep within the earth, using the steam to rotate turbines. The water is then pumped back into the aquifer.
Before our trip, Chuck and I met Tracy Sizemore, director of Battery Operations for Controlled Thermal Resources (CTR), at a San Diego Association of Geologists (SDAG) meeting learning more about the mineral resources in Imperial Valley. Chuck and I were as fascinated with that as the opportunity to see the biggest drill rig we’ve ever seen, which would be drilling an 8,000-foot well for groundwater extraction. We learned about the brine’s lithium resources (another term for the super-heated, mineral-rich groundwater).
Lithium has become a highly sought-after metal with the proliferation of electric vehicles. Given this increase in value, it is now economically feasible to extract it from the brine as part of the energy generation process. Some companies have plans to conduct the extraction in addition to electricity generation at existing geothermal plants. One company will build a separate extraction facility next to an existing plant.
CTR is planning to develop a plant that will focus primarily on the extraction of lithium, with energy generation being secondary. As Geologists, we got a tour of CTR’s prototype plant. It was fascinating to see all of the equipment and the results of the extraction process – a small bottle of lithium-rich liquid worth about $10. The extraction process also creates a sludge containing other important elements, including manganese, zinc, and even gold and silver. The plan is to sell the sludge to another company to extract the additional economic elements.
The process of extracting lithium in this manner is sustainable and much cleaner than traditional mining methods. It is also considered carbon-neutral. The new plant will generate enough electricity to power it 100%, with enough left over to power a battery manufacturing facility next door after its construction.
CTR’s lithium extraction process expects to bring 1,400 jobs to the area, with another 4,000 jobs once the battery plant is up and running. With the influx of workers, the Imperial Valley needs more infrastructure, housing, and services, so it is supporting economic growth.
In the fall, we plan to return to CTR’s facility to see the enormous rig drilling the 8,000-foot well!
Meet the Author – Jen Morton, Professional Geologist and SCS Project Manager
Consider a position with the finest pure-environmental firm in North America!
On June 12, 2023, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) published its final regulation addressing the control of landfill gas (LFG) methane emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the state (promulgated under COMAR 26.11.42). Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) with a global warming potential more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide. The rule has been several years in the making and is modeled after similar rules in California and Oregon. The rule also incorporates provisions from the EPA’s federal landfill air regulations under NSPS & EG 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cf and XXX and NESHAP CFR 63 Subpart AAAA and stands among the most stringent in the US.
The new regulation will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of Maryland’s state plan for MSW landfills (state plan). The state plan will be equivalent to or more stringent than the EPA’s NSPS & EG 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cf and XXX and NESHAP CFR 63 Subpart AAAA and will apply to smaller and mid-sized landfills not currently subject to the EPA’s federal rules. MDE estimates that 32 active and closed MSW landfills in the state will be subject to the rule. The rule is effective June 12, 2023.
Some key provisions of the rule include:
This rulemaking has been several years in development and is consistent with Maryland’s GHG Reduction Act of 2009 and the recent Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022 that requires Maryland to become “net zero” for GHG emissions by 2045, with an interim goal of achieving 60% GHG reductions by 2031 (over 2006 levels). MDE estimates this rule will achieve a 25-50% reduction in GHG emissions from affected landfills.
Additional information on MSW regulations and GHG emission reductions:
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:
Corporate Headquarters
