SCS Engineers

July 10, 2025

The Clean Water Act (CWA) specifies various technology-based Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for direct and indirect dischargers. These ELGs include:

• Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT): Applies to all pollutants and is based on the best performance of facilities within the industry.
• Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT): Targets conventional pollutants and involves a cost-reasonableness test.
• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT): Focuses on toxic and nonconventional pollutants, representing the highest performance in the industry.
• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Applies to new sources and reflects the most stringent controls attainable.
• Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES): Designed to prevent pollutants from interfering with Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
• Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS): Similar to PSES but applies to new indirect dischargers.

EPA evaluated available technologies to treat or remove meat and poultry (MPP) pollutants individually and in treatment trains, as shown below in subsections, based on the type of pollutant removal, including conventional pollutants, phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogens, and chlorides.

Conventional Pollutant Removal
MPP process wastewater contains oil & grease, TSS, and BOD, all conventional pollutants removed with primary treatment, which removes floating and settle-able solids. Typical treatment technologies include screening and DAF.

Facilities may add polymers, flocculants, and phosphorus-precipitating chemicals to or before the DAF. The chemical addition increases the removal of pollutants from the wastewater. Adding chemicals to remove phosphorus can help facilities meet phosphorus effluent limits. Chemical addition may not be possible for facilities that recycle materials from the DAF to the facility, as this would contaminate the raw material.

Biological/Organic Pollutant Removal an Attractive Option
Biological, physical, and chemical processes remove BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Biological processes are useful to achieve low levels of BOD and nitrogen and are common at MPP facilities. Microorganisms in biological wastewater treatment require phosphorus for cell synthesis and energy transport, typically removing 10 to 30 percent of influent phosphorus. Through biological treatment, organic compounds break down with bacteria into water, CO2, N2, and CH4 products.

1. Anaerobic biological treatment: Facultative and anaerobic microorganisms in anaerobic digesters reduce organic matter and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) into gaseous methane and carbon dioxide in anaerobic wastewater treatment. The gas may be reused as biogas, offsetting energy costs. Anaerobic treatment systems have negligible energy requirements and can treat high-strength wastewater. Anaerobic lagoons are a typical anaerobic system used at MPP facilities. Due to the detention time, these lagoons also equalize wastewater flow. The lagoons are not mixed to maintain anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic lagoons can reduce BOD by 95 percent and suspended solids by 95 percent. (Johns. 1995; [4] USEPA. 1974; [5] USEPA. 1975).[6]
2. Aerobic biological treatment: In aerobic wastewater treatment, microorganisms require oxygen to degrade organic material into water, carbon dioxide, and organic compounds. Aerobic degradation is faster than anaerobic degradation. Soluble BOD reductions up to 95 percent are possible. Aerated lagoons have fixed, floating, or diffused air systems to aerate the water. Aerobic lagoons (naturally aerated systems) use algae to aerate the system through photosynthesis.
3. Anoxic biological treatment: Anoxic wastewater treatment systems are oxygen-deficient; bacteria break down nitrogenous compounds into nitrogen gas and oxygen.
4. Activated sludge: This system includes an aeration tank followed by a settling tank. Settled solids from the second tank are recycled back into the aeration tank. Under optimal conditions, this process can achieve 95 percent reductions in BOD, suspended solids, and ammonia.
5. Sequencing batch reactor (SBR): An SBR completes the activated sludge process in a single reactor. The system first fills with wastewater, and then the reaction in which bacteria break down organic compounds in the presence of oxygen occurs for some time. The system needs time to settle and separate the microorganisms from the treated effluent, and then the tank is discharged. SBR systems provide high removal rates of BOD and suspended solids, can be designed for nitrification, and can remove nitrogen and phosphorus. SBRs are ideal for low-flow processes as they do not need to run continuously, and the systems allow for operational and loading flexibility.
6. Multistage biological treatment for nitrogen removal: Nitrogen removal is a two-step process: nitrification and denitrification.
7. Nitrification is a two-step aerobic process. First, Nitrosomonas bacteria oxidize ammonia into nitrite. Then, Nitrobacter bacteria oxidize nitrite into nitrate.
8. Denitrification: This process reduces nitrite and nitrate produced by heterotrophic bacteria into nitrogen gas in anaerobic conditions. A carbon source, such as methanol, may need to be added to keep the microbes healthy.

Biological treatment systems are often used in series to achieve high nitrogen removal rates. Wastewater flows from one system to the next, with recycle streams and returned activated sludge returning to various system locations. Some examples include:

1. Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE): The MLE is a two-stage system in which an aerobic stage follows an anoxic stage before wastewater goes to a clarifier. Mixed liquor with high nitrate levels is recycled from the aerobic stage back to the influent. Activated sludge from the clarifier is also recycled back into the influent. The MLE process removes most of the BOD and can achieve a nitrogen removal of 80 percent.
2. Bardenpho: This is a four-stage process: anoxic, aerobic, anoxic, aerobic, followed by a secondary clarifier. Mixed liquor with high nitrate levels is recycled from the first aerobic stage back to the first anoxic stage. Activated sludge from the clarifier is recycled back to the influent. Nitrification occurs primarily in the second stage (aerobic). Denitrification occurs in the first and third stages (anoxic). The final aeration stage removes nitrogen gas from the system and increases dissolved oxygen concentration. The four-stage Bardenpho process achieves higher nitrogen removal rates than the two-stage MLE process.

iii. Modified Bardenpho: This is a five-stage process: anaerobic, anoxic, aerobic, anoxic, aerobic, followed by a secondary clarifier. As in the Bardenpho process, mixed liquor with high nitrate levels is recycled from the first aerobic stage to the first anoxic stage, and activated sludge from the clarifier is recycled back to the influent. The anaerobic stage at the beginning of the system results in biological phosphorus removal. Phosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs) are recycled from the aerobic stage in the mixed liquor to the anaerobic stage. In the following aerobic stages, PAOs uptake large amounts of phosphorus.

1. Other: Many other processes use multiple stages of treatment to remove nitrogen. These include A2/O, step feed, University of Capetown (UCT) processes, oxidation ditches, and Schreiber processes (USEPA, 2004, EPA-821-R-04-011).
2. Membrane bioreactor (MBR): MBRs use membranes to separate liquids and solids. The liquid stream then passes through anoxic and aerobic zones, similar to the biological treatment systems described above. As the membranes greatly reduce the suspended solids in the liquid stream, MBR removes nitrogen and phosphorus.
3. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal: Microorganisms used in biological wastewater treatment require phosphorus for cell synthesis and energy transport. In treating typical domestic wastewater, between 10 and 30 percent of influent phosphorus is removed by microbial assimilation, followed by clarification or filtration. However, phosphorus assimilation above requirements for cell maintenance and growth, known as luxury uptake, can be induced by a sequence of anaerobic and aerobic conditions (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1991). As explained above, the modified Bardenpho process removes phosphorus biologically.

Phosphorus Removal
As mentioned in the biological/organic pollutant removal section, some phosphorus is removed in biological treatment processes. Chemical addition and/or tertiary filters achieve low phosphorus levels.

1. Chemical addition: Phosphorus can be removed from wastewater by precipitation using metal salts [ferric chloride, aluminum sulfate (alum)] or lime. Add polymers to increase the removal efficiency. The chemicals may be added before or in the DAF, in primary clarifier effluent, or in the biological treatment processes before or after secondary clarification. The precipitated phosphorus is removed with other biosolids.
2. Tertiary Filters: Filters are used to achieve high phosphorus removal rates following chemical phosphorus removal. Tertiary filtration may include sand filters, ion exchange, membranes, etc.

Pathogen Removal
Disinfection destroys remaining pathogenic microorganisms and is generally required for all MPP wastewater discharged to surface waters. Chlorination/dechlorination, Ultra-Violet (UV), and some filters can meet effluent limits for pathogens and inactivate pathogenic microorganisms before discharge to surface waters.

1. Chlorination/dechlorination: Chlorine disinfects wastewater through oxidation reactions with cellular material, which destroys pathogens. Mixing and contact time in a chlorine contact chamber are critical to ensure proper disinfection. The chlorine compounds commonly used for wastewater disinfection are chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991). Chlorine residuals are toxic to aquatic life, so dechlorination is often necessary. Add sulfur dioxide as it reacts with free chlorine and chloramines with chloride ions, lowering chlorine residuals (USEPA, 1999, EPA 832-F-99-062).
2. Ultra-Violet (UV): Radiation emitted from UV light is an effective bactericide and virucide and does not generate toxic compounds. Wavelengths between 250 and 270 nm inactivate cells (USEPA, 1999, EPA 832-F-99-064). UV lamps can be submerged in the wastewater or suspended outside the wastewater.
3. Tertiary Filtration: Filters and membranes with pore sizes smaller than pathogens can be useful in removing pathogens from wastewater. Ultrafiltration, membranes, and reverse osmosis are options.

Chloride Removal
Some MPP processes, including hides processing, meat and poultry koshering, and further processing techniques, such as curing, brining, and pickling, commonly produce wastewater streams with high levels of chlorides. Some facilities use water softening, which can also produce high chloride wastestreams. Wastewater treatment technologies commonly found at POTWs and many MPP facilities do not remove chlorides. The optimal chloride treatment technologies for a facility depend on wastewater strength, climate, land availability, and cost. High chloride wastestreams may be able to be separated from other wastestreams, which can reduce costs and energy required for treatment.

1. Hauling: Facilities may haul high chloride wastewater (brine) offsite in tanker trucks. The wastewater may be taken to a renderer where it may be used for production purposes, transported to a facility equipped to treat and/or dispose of brine, or taken offsite for deep-well injection or other means of disposal. Hauling can be costly compared to other options, especially for large amounts of wastewater.
2. Evaporation ponds: Brine wastewater flows into shallow ponds exposed to the sun. The water evaporates, leaving salt. Empty the salt from the ponds occasionally to allow for reuse. This technology relies on solar evaporation and is best in dry/semi-dry climates. Land space for the ponds is also necessary. Due to the potential for groundwater pollution, line the ponds.
3. Evaporation systems/Crystallizers: Concentrate brine water to near saturation, which results in salt crystallization. Heat evaporates the water. The systems are often costly compared to other options, and corrosion is common when not using proper construction materials.
4. Deep-well injection: Fluids such as brine or salt water can be injected underground into porous geological formations. A Class I well is normally 1,700 to more than 10,000 feet deep. Constructing a well can be costly, and deep-well injection is not allowed in all states, but the permit is valid for years.

Solids Handling
Some wastewater treatment technologies produce industrial sludge. In the MPP industry, DAF and clarifiers primarily generate sludge. The sludge contains oil & grease, organic materials, nitrogen, phosphorus, and chemicals/polymers added in the treatment system. The sludge may have a high water content, which can be reduced to reduce volume and save on hauling and landfilling costs. Common dewatering technologies include gravity thickening units and the belt filter press. The sludge may be incinerated, land applied, or landfilled, depending on state, local, and federal regulations and disposal method availability. 

Additional Information About PFAS Removal – Foam fractionation is a separation process that leverages the affinity of certain molecules for the air-liquid interface to isolate and concentrate them. It works by bubbling gas through a liquid, causing the target molecules to adsorb onto the surface of the bubbles and rise to the top, forming a foam that is removed. This process is useful for removing and concentrating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water and wastewater.

• Additional Information About Wastewater Treatment
• Free Webinar for the MPP Industry or Food & Beverage Industry

July 9, 2025

An energy company using coal (many still do as they transition to renewable energy sources) uses desulfurization for its flue gas, preventing air pollution and creating gypsum as a by-product. Fly ash, another by-product of creating energy, is sold to concrete companies for a profit. The wastewater used in these green processes has high chloride. It is pretreated to ensure the chemistry of the wastewater is safe before injecting it into an EPA and state regulatory agencies-approved Class I well below drinking water aquifers.

Pretreatment helps to ensure the energy company does not decrease the capacity of the well to accept wastewater. Chemical characterization of the wastewater in the permitting process and regular sampling during operations helps ensure the fluid is non-hazardous and unchanged.

Using green practices, this energy company prevents air and water pollution, protects drinking water resources, and qualifies as a zero-discharge facility. The bottom line is that they provide energy at a reasonable cost; the company is profitable from its green practices and protects health and human life.

That’s sustainability that empowers the safety of electric utilities as they provide for our energy needs.

You are welcome to make use of SCS Engineers’ extensive library of papers, blogs, and videos for the power sector. Here are a few suggestions:

• Class I UIC Wells: Feasibility Phase Estimation of Injection Rate – When determining if a well or multiple wells can support industrial liquid management needs, an estimated injection rate is an important criterion informing decisions.
• CCR and Electric Utilities Videos – A collection of educational videos providing solutions to environmental challenges for electric utilities.
• Coal Combustion Residuals and Electric Utilities – Resolve the complex issues arising as utilities alter CCR characteristics, convert from wet to dry collection, or seek options for the beneficial use of CCR materials. It also covers solar energy, groundwater monitoring, and design-permitting through post-closure.

Professional Geologist Jake Dyson is responsible for permitting, drilling, regulatory compliance, and operating Class I, II, V, and VI UIC wells. Dyson manages permitting, testing, and workovers of UIC wells and serves his clients as a technical advisor on developing and executing well construction material, formation fluid, and well testing programs, including managing drilling and construction costs, interpreting geologic data for model inputs, and developing static geologic models. You can reach Jake at SCS Engineers or on LinkedIn.

July 3, 2025

The EPA proposes updated effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for meat and poultry product facilities, aiming to reduce wastewater pollution, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus discharged from meat and poultry processing facilities. These changes affect meat and poultry industry facilities, including those that would apply to additional direct and indirect dischargers.

There is growing concern as local and state ELGs are also beginning to appear. These new guidelines can impact the meat and poultry industry and the food and beverage industry. In summary, the federal guidelines are influencing state and local plans.

• The EPA is considering multiple regulatory options, including those that would apply to additional direct and indirect dischargers. At the federal, state, and local levels, WTPs (water treatment plants) will likely mandate more FOG restrictions (fats, oils, grease).
• The proposed federal rule would establish more stringent effluent limitations for nitrogen and, for the first time, limitations for phosphorus. It introduces pretreatment standards for oil and grease, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand. The proposal also includes regulations for wastewater with high salt content. Stricter ELGs impact more meat and poultry facilities, including those that discharge wastewater to POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment Works).
• The new guidelines would require some facilities to treat their wastewater before discharge, potentially leading to increased costs and operational changes for treatment and trained operators to implement the new technologies and operational changes.
• Impacts these Subparts within the CLEAN WATER ACT – 40 CFR 432 (link)

Meat:

• Subpart A – Simple Slaughterhouses: Facilities that slaughter animals and perform minimal by-product processing (e.g., rendering, paunch handling).
• Subpart B – Complex Slaughterhouses: Facilities that slaughter animals and perform extensive by-product processing (at least three operations).
• Subpart C – Low-Processing Packinghouses: Facilities that slaughter animals and process a similar or lesser amount of meat into finished products.
• Subpart D – High-Processing Packinghouses: Facilities that slaughter animals and process their carcasses and additional carcasses from external sources.
• Subpart E – Small Processors: Facilities that produce less than 6,000 lbs/day of finished meat products (fresh cuts, smoked, canned, etc.).
• Subpart F – Meat Cutters: Facilities that cut or produce fresh meat cuts (steaks, roasts, etc.) at rates greater than 6,000 lbs/day.
• Subpart G – Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processors: Facilities that produce sausage, bologna, and other luncheon meats at rates greater than 6,000 lbs/day.
• Subpart H – Ham Processors: Facilities that produce hams, alone or with other finished products, at rates greater than 6,000 lbs/day.
• Subpart I – Canned Meats Processors: Facilities that produce canned meats (stew, sandwich spreads, etc.), alone or with other finished products, at rates greater than 6,000 lbs/day.
• Subpart J – Renderers: Facilities that render animal fats, bones, and meat scraps.

Poultry Processing:

• Subpart K – Poultry First Processing: Facilities that slaughter poultry.
• Subpart L – Poultry Further Processing: Facilities that further process poultry products.

Overall, the proposed changes in effluent limitation guidelines by the EPA represent a significant shift in regulatory expectations for the meat and poultry industry. SCS Engineers provides webinars and resources that provide crucial insights and guidance for industry stakeholders to navigate these changes effectively.

SCS Engineers provides these free resources:

• Live educational webinar with Q&A 
• Technical Bulletin summarizing the proposed federal ELGs
• Wastewater and Leachate Treatment

July 1, 2025

Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) is often identified as a potential culprit of odors and nuisance complaints near municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Some base their complaints on information found on the Internet as fact. As experts, let’s start by saying data from other landfills or pulled from an AI browser summary online will not provide accurate answers. H₂S concentrations vary widely and are unique to individual landfills.

How is H₂S generated in an MSW landfill, and why do concentrations vary?
Calcium sulfate (CaSO4•2H2O, aka gypsum), the primary ingredient in wallboard (aka drywall), can be biologically converted to H₂S under select and somewhat rare conditions. Specifically, seven conditions are required for the biodegradation of gypsum to H₂S. See (Gypsum Association, Industry Technical Paper: Treatment and Disposal of Gypsum Board Waste (Jan. 1991); Gypsum Association, Treatment and Disposal of Gypsum Board Waste, Part II, Technical Paper (Mar. 1992).

1. Liquid Water (i.e., saturated waste with free liquids)
2. Source of Soluble Sulfate
3. Sulfate-reducing Bacteria
4. Organic Material
5. Anoxic Environment
6. Appropriate pH Range
7. Appropriate Temperature Range

Condition 1 – Liquid Water. The biological conversion of sulfate to H₂S occurs in the aqueous phase—i.e., sufficient free liquids must be present, and sulfates must dissolve into the free liquids. Modern landfills with leachate collection systems may experience intermittent perched and discrete zones of saturation within the waste mass, particularly following periods of extended precipitation. Low-permeability confining layers (e.g., clay or clay-like soil used for intermediate cover) may temporarily trap water/leachate in discrete pockets within the landfill.

Condition 2 – Source of Soluble Sulfate. Gypsum, having the chemical formula CaSO₄•2H₂O, is a source of soluble sulfate. Gypsum sources include wallboard (aka drywall), flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material from coal-fired power plants, and some industrial wastes. Sulfates and sulfur compounds can also be present in lower concentrations in other waste streams, depending on what the MSW landfill accepts.

Condition 3 – Sulfate-reducing Bacteria. Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria (“SRB”) use dissolved sulfate as an electron acceptor in the oxidation of carbon. Primary SRB include Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum. These SRBs, as well as many other bacteria, are commonly present in MSW landfills. However, the presence of SRB within a landfill may not be ubiquitous, and may be limited to regions where the other required conditions favor their existence and survival.

Condition 4 – Organic Material. SRBs use organic material as a food source to multiply and degrade sulfate to H₂S. Carbon serves as a source of energy for the bacteria. Typical MSW has a high organic content due to a wide variety of organic materials such as wood, paper, cardboard, food, vegetative waste, and fabrics. Many communities with recycling programs help divert these waste materials for reuse and recycling.

Condition 5 – Anoxic Environment. SRBs thrive under anoxic (without oxygen) conditions. The presence of oxygen can kill SRBs. While anoxic conditions are typically not present in areas where MSW was recently disposed, they are typical in portions of MSW landfills where organic wastes have been present for at least a few months and decompose to produce methane and carbon dioxide.

Condition 6 – Appropriate pH Range. SRB reduction of sulfate to H₂S is reportedly optimum within a pH range of about 7 to 8, and does not occur outside a pH range of about 4 to 9. The pH range within a typical MSW landfill falls within this activity range.

Condition 7 – Appropriate Temperature Range. SRB reproduction and H₂S generation are reportedly optimum within a range of about 30 °C to 38 °C (86 °F to 100 °F). Many MSW landfills are within or a little above this optimum range. Studies of SRB in geologic environmental settings found reduced activity above about 60 °C (140 °F), and no activity above about 80 °C (176 °F). Similarly, SRB activity ceases in freezing conditions.

In summary,  although the necessary conditions for H₂S generation are likely intermittently present within some discrete pockets within many MSW landfills, the conditions are not likely ubiquitous throughout the waste. MSW landfill conditions and waste composition are typically highly heterogeneous with respect to both location within the landfill and time. Thus, there are zones within landfills where many, but not all of the seven required conditions are present, and H₂S generation does not occur. For example, there are undoubtedly many regions within landfills where free liquids (i.e., saturated conditions) are not present and, therefore, SRB conversion of sulfates to H2S does not occur, despite the presence of the other six conditions.

Similarly, a landfill may have pockets where bulk sulfate-containing waste has been disposed of but where the internal portion of the pocket is not exposed to moisture, organics, or SRB—each a necessary condition for converting sulfate to H₂S.

Considering these seven conditions and heterogeneous landfill conditions, there are too many variables to provide a reliable and defendable quantitative model for H₂S generation at all MSW landfills.

Monitoring and Treating Landfill H2S Conditions
We invite you to use our free resource library to learn more about how monitoring and data collection can protect your workers and the surrounding environment.

• Hydrogen Sulfide Balancing Act – Act Fast, Think Long-Term
• The who, what, when, where, and why of measuring and controlling landfill odors and H2S
• Staying Ahead of Landfill Odors – Educational Video
• Landfill Hydrogen Sulfide Treatment System

About the Author: Jeff Marshall, PE, is a Vice President of SCS Engineers and our National Expert on Emerging Contaminants (e.g., PFAS) and Innovative Technologies. He has over four decades of experience emphasizing environmental chemistry (e.g., hydrogen sulfide generation at MSW landfills), environmental permitting and compliance (e.g., fumigation facilities), hazardous materials/waste management, site assessment/remediation, treatment technologies, and human health risk issues. Hydrogen sulfide experience includes dozens of facilities, including landfills, coal-fired power plants, and paper mills.

June 24, 2025

Join SCS Engineers as Sponsors and Exhibitors at the 2025 SDHF Annual Affordable Housing and Community Development Conference in San Diego, CA on October 16^th, 2025. The San Diego Housing Federation’s annual Affordable Housing and Community Development Conference brings together more than 600 developers, builders, architects, lenders, property managers, service providers, elected and agency officials and staff, community, and business leaders to share innovative approaches to affordable housing, community, and economic development. We are proud sponsors of the event and we look forward to seeing you there.

Follow the link to find more information about the conference: https://www.housingsandiego.org/events-2/2025-affordable-housing-amp-community-development-conference

May 9, 2025

Join SCS Engineers at the 2025 National Brownfields Training Conference at McCormick Place in Chicago, August 5–8, 2025.

Brownfields 2025 brings together professionals from government, industry, and the community to explore best practices for the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites. As the premier event focused on transforming contaminated properties into community assets, Brownfields 2025 offers more than 180 interactive sessions, mobile workshops, and networking events. Attendees will connect with peers and decision-makers, discover new resources and technical assistance, and explore the latest innovations in brownfields cleanup and sustainable redevelopment.

Stop by and visit SCS Engineers at Booth 314 to connect with our experts, learn more about our work in brownfields remediation, and explore how we help communities turn environmental challenges into revitalization opportunities. Don’t miss this opportunity to connect with SCS Engineers and the broader brownfields community in the heart of the Windy City – register now!

Look for these special presentations:

Let Me Tell You a Story – Brownfields and StoryMaps with Megan Husic, a Nevada Certified Environmental Manager and a Project Manager at SCS Engineers. Megan’s presentation explores the power of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and ESRI StoryMaps in transforming how we engage with stakeholders and communities, particularly in the context of brownfield projects. StoryMaps is a dynamic tool that integrates maps with narrative text, images, and multimedia to create compelling and interactive stories. StoryMaps are valuable for educating the audience about Brownfields, showcasing the potential of Brownfields revitalization, providing background and current site information, and outlining plans and community benefits. Learn the essential steps and considerations for creating an effective StoryMap, including the importance of assembling a skilled team, and discover how it can revolutionize brownfield project communication and stakeholder engagement.

Transforming Brownfield Redevelopment with GIS: A Comprehensive Approach with Kayla Ouellette, GIS Manager at SCS Engineers. Kayla’s presentation explores the transformative role of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in managing and communicating the complexities of brownfield projects. Kayla delves into leveraging GIS technology to enhance project planning, data management, and stakeholder engagement. Key topics include an overview of the GIS environment, access to GIS software, and practical applications, including site selection and ranking, demographic analysis, data management, and community outreach. Her presentation emphasizes the importance of starting with the end in mind, ensuring that you tailor GIS solutions to meet specific project needs and reporting requirements. By utilizing GIS, project teams can improve accuracy, efficiency, and communication, ultimately leading to more successful brownfield redevelopment efforts.

Melissa Schick joins Alyssa Kuhn and Aditi Chakravarty of EPA, Richard Jenkins of Pasco County, FL, for a Topic Talk on Brownfields Challenges Created through Increasing Frequency and Intensity of Hurricanes. U.S. EPA Region 4 had a challenging hurricane season with Hurricanes Helene and Milton which made landfall on Florida’s Gulf Coast on September 26 and October 9, respectively. Helene’s total costs were $78.7 billion in damages and an estimated total of $59.6 billion in damage and needs were attributed to North Carolina, alone. When we add in other disasters such as wild fires, tornados, and floods the amount of debris to manage is a major challenge for states and the waste industry too. 

Eric Williams is a trainer for the Brownfields University pre-conference training event, designed to provide a curriculum of core brownfield concepts and practices before the full educational program content. Eric will be providing his “Stack & Sequence – Strategically Using Multiple Sources of Brownfields Funding” training module, which is the subject of multiple papers and presentations. Public agencies and non-profits will benefit by learning how to best promote redevelopment through utilizing multiple capital sources.

Join us for a relaxed evening of networking, drinks, and city views as we celebrate our shared commitment to Brownfields Redevelopment. Taking place Thursday, August 7, 2025 from 7 – 9PM at the VU Rooftop Lounge.

April 29, 2025

April 28, 2025

A third of the food raised or prepared does not make it from farm or factory to fork. Producing uneaten food squanders a whole host of resources—seeds, water, energy, land, fertilizer, hours of labor, and financial capital—generating greenhouse gases at every stage, including methane when organic matter lands in the global rubbish bin. The food we waste is responsible for roughly 8 percent of global emissions. Greg McCarron discusses how composting and anaerobic digestion turn organic waste into a beneficial product in Waste Management & Research, Volume 43, Issue 4.

The trend in the United States is towards using ASP systems to process food scrap materials. Recent examples by private companies involve the composting of food processing residuals. One company implemented a turned windrow compost project for sustainability reasons and to produce organic fertilizer to grow organic food products, which continue to grow in demand. Another company is pursuing an ASP compost project as land application regulations are changing, which are affecting America’s farms and farmers, and requiring enhanced organic management practices.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) involves decomposing organic waste in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere, producing methane-rich biogas. Historically, AD has been used to process low solids/wet organic materials, such as manure, biosolids, and liquid industrial waste. To manage food waste, three types of AD facilities are increasingly being utilized in the United States: (1) stand-alone food waste digesters, (2) on-farm digesters that co-digest food waste and manure, and (3) digesters at water resource recovery facilities that co-digest food waste and biosolids.

Greg’s editorial, “Composting: A tool to combat climate change,” is published by Sage Journals. You may read it here or use the icons at the bottom of the page to share the article.

McCarron GP. Composting: A tool to combat climate change. Waste Management & Research. 2025;43(4):453-454.doi:10.1177/0734242X251319678

About the Author: As a Vice President, Greg McCarron oversees SCS Engineers’ nationwide organics management initiative, which includes edible food rescue, composting, and anaerobic digestion. Greg is SCS’s National Expert on Organics and works closely with national, regional, and local clients. His experience includes the design, planning, permitting, regulatory support, construction oversight, system start-up, economic analysis, and technology assessment projects for municipal and private clients. His turn-key projects typically involve feasibility studies, due diligence evaluations, facility siting, site investigations, environmental studies, permitting, design, and construction and operation services. Facilities include compost facilities, landfills, landfill gas control facilities, and support facilities (e.g., roadways, stormwater, utilities). Other projects include waste composition studies, compliance reports, and preparing various procurement documents. Reach out to Greg at  or on LinkedIn.

Additional Composting Resources:

• Designing a Sustainable Municipal Composting Facility – Article
• Meeting Evolving Air Quality Regulations and Permit Requirements for Composting Facilities – Article
• Design, Site, Permit a Composting Facility – Educational Video
• Organics Management
• Anaerobic Digestion for Industry and Agriculture

April 25, 2025

Join SCS Engineers and San Diego Environmental Professionals for a case study of a real PFAS investigation at a commercial airport, Santa Maria public airport. Speaker and SCS Engineers Project Manager Chuck Houser will be sharing some of the experiences, pitfalls, and takeaways from doing this investigation.

April 25, 2025

SCS Engineers is a proud sponsor of the 2025 California Rural Water Expo. Join fellow water professionals for a week of training, networking, and fun in the beautiful setting of Lake Tahoe. Attendees will get an opportunity to learn from industry experts, like SCS Engineers Project Manager Chuck Houser, and get a look at current technology and vendors. Highlights include our annual banquet, Brew fest, raffle, Mardi Gras Bead Game, and more fun! Registration is open for exhibitors and attendees. Visit the link for more information.