Technical Articles Archives - Brickhouse Environmental

March Newsletter – Act 2 TGM, Vapor Intrusion, & more!

March 27, 2019

Act 2 TGM, Vapor Intrusion, & Revisions to PA’s Storage Tank Regulations

There’s a New (Revised) Playbook for Site Remediation in Pennsylvania

Since our inception in 1977, site investigation and remediation have remained at the core of our business with many of our clients and sites residing in Pennsylvania. Prior to the adoption of the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2) in 1995, regulatory closures of cleanup sites were on a case by case basis, wrought with inconsistencies and sometimes frustration on all sides. It was the goal of Act 2 to bring a consistent site remediation process to the Commonwealth that would facilitate the reuse of unused or underused commercial/industrial properties. While that goal has been largely realized, experiences over the many years since 1995 have led to many changes and incremental improvements to the process.

The most recent and highly anticipated improvement to the Act 2 process is the publication of a revised Act 2 technical guidance manual (TGM) on January 19, 2019. While the regulations that established Act 2 (25 Pa. Code Chapter 250) provide the framework for the Land Recycling Program, the TGM provides a user’s manual for the Act 2 process. The prior version of the TGM was published in 2002 and was in need of a significant revision to reflect what was learned over the decades working with Act 2 and the changes in the science of site investigation and remediation.

The current rendition of the TGM includes 500+ pages and represents a significant rework and expansion of the prior version to provide clarity and detail where it was needed most. The most notable of the changes/additions include:

A significantly expanded section detailing the assessment and remediation of separate phase liquids (SPL) at both Act 2 sites (voluntary cleanups) and cleanups conducted at regulated storage tank facilities under the Corrective Action Process. Of particular importance, scientifically grounded endpoints to free product remediation were added.

The prior TGM did not originally include detailed guidance for the assessment of vapor intrusion. This void was later filled by a supplemental vapor intrusion TGM section that was most recently modified in January 2017. This version of the vapor intrusion TGM has been integrated into the current 2019 TGM.

Similar to vapor intrusion, the prior TGM did not provide detailed guidance for proper groundwater monitoring well construction and abandonment. A standalone “Groundwater Monitoring Guidance Manual” was established in 2001 prior to the TGM, however it quickly became outdated. The updated TGM includes a new detailed section dedicated to this topic.

The new TGM includes clarified and expanded sections pertaining to the establishment of environmental covenants consistent with the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act and the topic of post-remedial care.

As a company, we use the TGM on a daily basis under a wide range of circumstances. Our client might be a commercial developer looking to build houses on an abandoned contaminated commercial property, or a homeowner looking to restore their property value following a heating oil spill, or a regulated tank owner working through the Corrective Action Process following a release. Regardless of the reason for the cleanup, if it’s being cleaned up in Pennsylvania, your consultant and your regulator will likely be applying the Act 2 TGM to your site. Given the significant improvements to the TGM, we see these improvements translating to improved outcomes for our clients involved in remedial projects in Pennsylvania. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the application of the Act 2 process to your remedial project.

Soil Vapor Intrusion – Understanding the Process

For many brownfield redevelopers and commercial property owners, evaluating and managing the threat of vapor intrusion has become an unwelcome, but not uncommon, challenge. As urban renewal projects continue to “repurpose” old manufacturing buildings, replace old dry cleaners at retail shopping centers, and plow over gas stations, the potential for contaminated soil vapors to intrude into buildings continues to grow. To understand whether vapor intrusion is truly a concern at your property, it is helpful to understand the baseline causes and processes of soil vapor intrusion, and to maintain trusted experts to help separate true potential health threats and viable solutions from the smoke and mirrors.

Vapor intrusion occurs when vapors migrate from subsurface contamination into an overlying or adjacent building. In order for vapor intrusion to occur, first there must be a source of the vapors. The source is most commonly soil or groundwater impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Once in the vapor phase, these chemicals begin to migrate through the subsurface, and potentially into overlying buildings. The risk, or problem, comes when the occupants of that building breathe these vapors that can result in negative health effects. This may all sound familiar to radon — because it is! The realization of vapor intrusion as a concept stemmed from the concern over radon intrusion that took hold in the 1980s.

In the case that contaminated soil or groundwater is identified as a potential source for vapor intrusion, state and federal agencies have published extensive guidance on steps to evaluate risk to surrounding buildings. Depending on the relative location of the impacted soil or groundwater, the evaluation may include only a review of existing data versus screening values, or it may require sampling of 1) the air between the soil particles within the source area, 2) the air beneath the slab of the building, or 3) air within the building. This data can then be evaluated to determine if mitigation measures are warranted.

Brickhouse Environmental’s scientists and engineers understand the many variables that can impact soil vapor intrusion to buildings – including site-specific soil and rock conditions, preferential utility pathways, and building construction. If vapor intrusion is found to be a material threat at your property, there are options for mitigation. In new construction, vapor barriers can be installed beneath the building to prevent the migration of vapors to indoor air. For existing structures, sub-slab ventilation systems can be designed and installed to remove contaminated soil vapors from beneath the building and ventilate it to above the roofline. This continues to be the most common and successful approach. If a vapor intrusion concern is identified at your property, contact our experts to help verify the source and design the most cost-effective and least disruptive solutions for your site.

Pennsylvania Tightens Down on Regulated Storage Tank Owners

Pennsylvania’s Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Program regulations were significantly modified on December 22, 2018. The changes are focused on increasing the emphasis on proper equipment operation and maintenance with the goal of decreasing the number and severity of underground storage tank releases in the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection – Division of Storage Tanks has created the following website to help regulated tank system owners comply with the new regulations: New Regulations

Brickhouse is Hiring!

Brickhouse Environmental has an opening in our West Chester, Pennsylvania office for an Environmental Scientist/Geologist Project Manager who is looking for an opportunity for responsibility and growth in a vibrant, well-established, and growing company. The selected candidate will be responsible for scoping, performing, managing, and completing multiple concurrent project assignments in a team-oriented environment. The selected candidate will also be expected to play a significant role in the continued growth of our company, through project management and business development, and eventually staff development, and mentoring efforts.

For more information or to apply online, please visit our website: https://www.brickhouse-environmental.com/careers/

If you have any questions about your site or project, or need a Professional Geologist, Engineer, or Licensed Site Remediation Professional, please contact us at 610-692-5770.

January Newsletter – New Year, New Successes, New Water Rules

January 22, 2019

Top Stories – What’s New in 2019 ?

New Year, New Successes

The hard work and efforts made during last year have paid off- In 2019, Brickhouse welcomes good news and wishes to congratulate our valued staff on their various career successes.

Long-time employee and registered Professional Geologist (P.G.), Douglas Schott, has now added another state of licensure to his resumé: New York. Having been registered in the state of Pennsylvania and Delaware for over ten years, he has now completed the requirements for P.G. status in New York State. Congratulations Doug!

Registered Professional Geologist, Jeffrey Christopher, recently succeeded in the rigorous Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) testing. Each Year, New Jersey accepts only a small number of candidates for testing, of which number, even fewer are chosen to be licensed. We are extremely proud of Jeff, who is now an LSRP in the state of New Jersey. Way to go Jeff!

Stephen Huxta is now a registered Professional Geologist and holds a Masters Degree in Hydrogeology from the University of Pennsylvania. We heartily congratulate Steve, who has been with Brickhouse Environmental since the start of his professional career and has worked hard every single day. Excellent work Steve!

We are proud of our staff and look forward to a bright year ahead!

NJDEP Proposes New Interim Ground Water Quality Criteria For PFOA and PFOS

On January 18, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) announced proposed interim ground water quality criteria for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), emerging contaminants that are extremely persistent in the environment.

The DEP has developed draft interim criteria of 10 parts per trillion for each of these chemicals, lower than current standards or guidelines in any other state. The DEP has requested public input through Feb. 19, with the goal of making these interim criteria effective within the next several months. These criteria will remain in effect on an interim basis, until the DEP adopts formal rules setting formal standards for ground water and drinking water.

The interim ground water criteria will be used by the DEP, parties conducting remediation, and Licensed Site Remediation Professionals in making decisions about ground water remediation strategies in impacted areas. These criteria will also apply to regulated dischargers to ground water, including industries.

For more information on NJDEP’s Request for Public Input, go to:
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2019/19_0006.htm

New Water Rule from EPA

The 2018 Clean Water Rule eliminates the significant nexus determination, streamlining the jurisdictional review process and allowing land use decisions to be made without employing a team of lawyers to determine what puddles can be filled without a permit. The 2018 Rule provides a clearer demarcation of federal jurisdiction of waters and wetlands without hindering the rights of states to implement protections for other waters.

Since the passage of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972, filling of “waters of the United States” without a permit has been prohibited. The Act specifically mentions navigable waters and territorial seas, but the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers quickly expanded the working definition of “waters of the United States” to include tributaries to such waters, as well as adjacent wetlands. Because the Act failed to provide a definition of “waters of the United States,” the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, landowners, and the courts have struggled to agree on what other waters are covered by the permit requirement. Since 1977, Brickhouse Environmental has been helping land owners and developers navigate the ever-changing rules and regulations.

In 1985 (US v. Riverside Bayview Homes), the Supreme Court ruled that the Army Corps was reasonable in expanding jurisdiction to cover wetlands adjacent to “waters of the United States.” In 2001, following further expansion, the Supreme Court held that the Army Corps could not reasonably claim jurisdiction over isolated wetlands based on their use by migratory birds (SWANCC v. US Army Corps of Engineers). In 2005, the Court created a standard to determine whether an isolated wetland had a “significant nexus” to “waters of the United States” before the Army Corps could claim jurisdiction (Rapanos v. US).

In 2015, in an attempt to clarify the definition and address the findings of Rapanos, the EPA issued a Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States.” The 2015 Clean Water Rule greatly expanded the scope of jurisdiction to include not only traditionally navigable waters, their tributaries and adjacent wetlands, and any other water that could be shown to have a “significant nexus” to other waters of the United States, but also included isolated waters, such as prairie potholes, Carolina bays, and vernal pools. The significant nexus determination would be case specific and could be interpreted to include ephemeral drainage ways that only see flow during rain events, and, in the extreme, could include sheet flow as well as channelized flow. The 2015 definition was immediately challenged and is still in legal limbo, in effect in 22 states (including PA, MD, DE, NJ, and NY), with the remaining states still operating under prior rules.

In 2017, the EPA issued notice to repeal the 2015 Rule and in December 2018, issued a revised Clean Water Rule with six categories of “waters of the United States:”

1. Traditionally navigable waters (rivers, canals, lakes, and seas used in interstate and foreign commerce)
2. Tributaries to navigable waters with intermittent or perennial flow
3. Ditches that meet the conditions of navigable waters or tributaries
4. Lakes and ponds that meet the conditions of navigable waters or that contribute intermittent or perennial flow to downstream waters
5. Impoundments of other waters of the US
6.Wetlands that physically touch other waters of the US, or that have a surface water connection in a typical year to other waters of the US

Excluded are groundwater, ephemeral features and stormwater runoff, ditches that are not navigable or are not themselves tributaries, prior converted cropland, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes and ponds constructed in uplands, depressions created in uplands incidental to mining or construction, stormwater control features constructed in uplands, wastewater recycling structures in uplands, waste treatment systems, and any other waters or water features not specifically listed as “waters of the United States.”

Following publication of the 2018 Clean Water Rule in the Federal Register, the EPA and Army Corps will be accepting public comments for a period of 60 days. More information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule.

If you have any questions about wetland delineation for your site or project, or need a Professional Geologist, Engineer, or Licensed Site Remediation Professional, please contact us at 610-692-5770.

November Newsletter – More Ethanol in Gas?, The Golden Brick, & Drones

November 1, 2018

Top Stories

More or Less Ethanol in Gasoline? Pros and Cons for the Environment

Gasoline and its additives have historically been a hot topic in the environmental arena, and they have recently made headlines again with the proposed increase of ethanol use in our gasoline. Throughout the years, changes to gasoline additives have improved our vehicle mileage, reduced emissions to the air, and have at least tried to align with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) mission to protect human health and the environment. But they have also left behind some interesting fingerprints, especially at soil and groundwater cleanup sites.

Changes in Gasoline Additives Over Time

Gasoline additives have been in use since the 1920s. Lead was added to gasoline as far back as the 1920s, as an alternative fuel to reduce “knocking,” boost octane, and prevent the buildup of deposits within the engine. Lead was phased out in the 1980s, due to identified adverse health risks. In 1990, Amendments to the Clean Air Act required the use of oxygenated gasoline in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. As a result, between 1992 and 2005, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) became the oxygenating additive of choice,but it was later found to have detrimental effects to groundwater from emissions and/or spills, due to its high solubility and resistance to biodegradation. As a result, MTBE was phased out and replaced with Ethanol, which is a corn-based additive that provides the beneficial oxygenation required by the Clean Air Act, while also meeting federal requirements for renewable fuels.

Ethanol – “E10” vs. “E15”

Since the 1970s, when oil became more expensive and subject to international disputes – and as worries rose about the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels – the U.S. government has used various policy incentives to encourage the use of ethanol and other environmentally friendly supplements to gasoline. As a result, ethanol reportedly makes up about 10 percent of current U.S. gasoline usage.

For several years, Federal regulations have allowed the sale of ethanol-containing fuels with up to 15 percent ethanol (known as “E15”). However, most U.S. service stations only provide “E10,” because the more corrosive E15 can cause damage to older model cars. There has been much debate over the pros and cons of E10 versus E15, as many say that E10 provides sufficient oxygenation to make gasoline burn more cleanly and reduce air pollution. And, while it might be assumed that E15 would be better for air quality, the EPA currently blocks the sale of E15 from June 1 to September 15 in areas where smog is a problem, due to the volatility of the fuel, and the greater evaporation of gas during those warmer periods possibly causing more smog. Still, with the overall push for alternative fuels, the changing design of cars to handle the fuels, and a nod to the corn farmers in the Midwest, we may be seeing E15 more widely available in the near future.

Increased Ethanol Creates Unexpected Challenges at Cleanup Sites

An interesting side effect of ethanol use is also being discovered at petroleum cleanup sites. The subsurface geochemistry at a site is a key factor in assessing the source of a release, the speed and extent of contaminant migration, and appropriate cleanup options. Additives such as lead and MTBE have always provided clues as to the age, degradation, and source of releases. But now, in addition to differentiating fuel sources, environmental scientists are recognizing the impact that higher versus lower percentages of ethanol can have on subsurface geochemistry at spill sites, and that ethanol can actually create conditions for increased mobilization of contaminants in the environment. More specifically, studies indicate that ethanol significantly increases the solubility of petroleum constituents in water, which can have several effects at spill sites:

Once released to the subsurface, greater percentages of contaminants (benzene, etc.) can dissolve into the groundwater, resulting in larger dissolved plumes, with faster and further plume migration.
When ethanol fuels encounter older, residual petroleum in soils, the previously sorbed residuals can be remobilized by contact with the ethanol, and flushed toward the water table.
Ethanol inhibits the natural biodegradation of petroleum contaminants, especially BTEX, due to the preferential degradation of the ethanol.

The net effect is less natural attenuation, and increased dissolution and migration of gasoline constituents in groundwater. And the higher the ethanol concentrations, the greater the effects.

The Golden Brick…

For years, many of the staff at Brickhouse have insisted that they are more than just experts in science and engineering — that they also have an artistic and creative side. Now, they finally have a chance to prove it — in the Brickhouse Environmental Monthly Photo Contest!!

Each month, all members of the Brickhouse team are invited to capture and submit their best images from the field, the office, or anywhere else along their daily travels. At the end of each month, all staff anonymously vote for their favorite image. The winner receives a gift card and… “The [coveted] Golden Brick,” to proudly display as a testament to their achievement. Said contest creator Cherie E.: “This contest not only gives us all a chance to unleash our pent-up creative and artistic sides, but also to share with the world some of our cultural and day-to-day experiences that make Brickhouse so enjoyable.”

The inaugural winning photo is also featured on the homepage of our website- click here to see September’s winner: https://www.brickhouse-environmental.com/.

Environmental Applications of Drones

Drones are everywhere these days! They’re in your child’s hands, on the battlefield, doing great things, or getting their owners in trouble. Speaking of great things…environmental scientists, consulting firms, and private industry are putting them to work in all sorts of creative and useful ways. New instrumentation is continually being developed to further expand the usefulness of this (relatively) new research tool in the realm of environmental and geologic site investigation.

Brickhouse Environmental recently had the opportunity to attend a 1-day seminar presented by the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists (www.PCPG.org), geared toward the use of drones by geologic and environmental professionals. Presenters from West Chester University and Groundwater and Environmental Services, Inc. provided us with a very informative, hands-on experience that got us thinking more seriously about the applications of this technology and how it could benefit our clients. When I think of drones, I think of aerial photography and video. While this is one of the more common applications, advances in imagery collection and processing have turned pretty pictures into 3 dimensional georeferenced models, that can be manipulated in a variety of ways to rapidly gather and process site elevation data. Beyond aerial imagery collection, the capabilities of drones are only limited by the instrumentation they can carry. The following is just a sampling of the types of data that can be obtained by drones through the addition of specific cameras, sensors, and instrumentation: LiDAR imagery, radiological activity, gas composition, infrared imagery, meteorological information, and geophysical data.

These advances in drone capable instrumentation are creating ways for drones and their onboard technologies to be applied throughout our industry to the benefit of our clients and the regulated community. Here is a just a sample of these applications:

High resolution topographic and aerial photographic surveys can be obtained and processed quickly and cost effectively for use in complex environmental due diligence, land redevelopment, landfill volume calculations, pipeline/stream surveys, facility infrastructure inspection, etc.
Geophysical instrumentation can be flown over large areas to survey for buried metallic objects or debris (e.g. drums, underground tanks, pipelines, etc.).
A variety of gas monitoring equipment can be drone-mounted, allowing large areas to be quickly surveyed at a safe distance.
Remediation sites that involve contaminated groundwater discharges to surface water bodies can be challenging to fully characterize. It is possible with drone-mounted infrared cameras to locate these groundwater discharges along stream embankments with pinpoint accuracy.

While they look like big toys and can be seriously fun, they’re also seriously useful and economical, considering the potential overall benefit they can bring to a project. The quantity of quality data that can be obtained per dollar is significantly higher than other more conventional means of environmental and geologic data collection. While the use of drones is not applicable to all projects, their list of capabilities is continually expanding as technology advances.

If you have any questions about drone applications for your site or project, please contact us.

September 4th is National Protect Your Groundwater Day!!

September 4, 2018

Top Stories

September 4th is National Protect Your

Groundwater Day!!

Protect your Groundwater Day is an annual observance established by the National Groundwater Association (NGWA) to highlight the responsible development, management, and use of groundwater. It is also a platform to encourage yearly water well testing and well maintenance.

According to the NGWA, 44% of the U.S. population relies on groundwater for its drinking water supply. It is also used for irrigation, livestock, manufacturing, mining, thermoelectric power, and other purposes, making it one of the most widely used and valuable natural resources on earth.

NGWA also notes that only 1% of the water on earth is usable, 99% of which is groundwater. Groundwater is the world’s most extracted raw material, with withdrawal rates in the estimated range of 259 trillion gallons per year.

And, as everyone knows, drinking 6 to 8 glasses of water per day is good for your health. So, don’t take that crisp, clear, and clean glass of water for granted!

Brickhouse Environmental encourages everyone to do their part in conserving and protecting this precious resource.

Emerging Contaminants Update – NYSDEC Requiring Site Owners to Investigate PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane in Groundwater

In our Spring news alert, we advised of the extensive impacts to drinking water supply systems throughout much of the country from PFOA and PFOS, which had been specifically identified as “emerging contaminants” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public water supplies were shut down in numerous communities near military air bases and airports, due to the runoff and infiltration of these compounds from fire-fighting foams, which are probably the biggest contributor to these contaminants. Several of these sites are in our local area. (https://www.brickhouse-environmental.com/emerging-contaminants/)

The EPA has also labeled 1,4-dioxane as an emerging contaminant and, as toxicological studies continue, some states are lowering their groundwater standards to 0.3 ppb. This compound was a stabilizer added to the solvent 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) in the 1950s, so it is commonly found in groundwater at solvent cleanup sites.

The newly discovered health risks from these emerging contaminants, combined with advances in laboratory detection technologies down to the parts per trillion, are causing federal and state agencies to re-open investigations into previously closed Superfund and other remediation sites. Also, beginning this Summer, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) began issuing letters notifying remediation site owners of new requirements to sample their properties for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.

Analytical methods for these compounds are costly, as the labs must detect down into the parts per trillion level. Sampling techniques require great care and specific expertise. As a result, the need to assess and/or remediate these compounds can represent a significant additional financial burden to site owners. As different states continue to develop their emerging contaminant programs, it is important for property owners with affected sites to obtain technical and legal advice early in the process, to help manage these issues and their associated liabilities.

The Proper Abandonment of Unused Wells

Regardless of well type (monitoring, drinking water, agricultural, etc.) or location, it is always good practice to properly abandon wells that are not being used and are not planned for future use. The goal of well abandonment is to prevent potentially contaminated surface runoff from directly entering our aquifers. Regulatory implications vary from state to state and, in some instances, from county to county. In Pennsylvania for instance, Chester County and Bucks County tightly permit and regulate the installation, use, and abandonment of all types of wells. In Montgomery County, only potable supply wells are similarly regulated. Other counties in Pennsylvania (typically more rural counties) have no specific permitting or regulatory requirements for wells. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has also begun to more strongly encourage all well owners to properly abandon unused wells, particularly at closed remediation sites.

In New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has taken this a step further. At environmental cleanup sites, before the regulators will issue a Remedial Action Outcome (RAO: a State issued approval indicating that remedial work has been completed), the persons responsible for cleanup are required to properly abandon (seal) all existing groundwater monitoring wells. These well abandonments, by regulation, must be performed by a New Jersey licensed driller who will document the well sealing. This abandonment documentation is a required submittal to obtain the RAO. If monitoring wells are damaged, covered, or cannot be located to be properly abandoned, a series of administrative filings and submittals will be required to obtain your RAO. This administrative work can extend the timeframe to closure and add unforeseen project costs.

Groundwater: A Global Resource

Today, billions of people still lack access to a safe, reliable water source. Yet, water is one of the most important resources we all need to survive. On the most basic level, we need it for drinking and sanitation. While hard to imagine not having enough water to safely fulfill our basic needs, in more arid climates and less developed societies in the world, water can be scarce and oftentimes unsanitary. It is worth noting that, in any condition, consumption of untreated surface water results in significant risk of water borne diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. To add to the risk, unsafe drinking water sources are often great distances from people’s homes, resulting in hours of daily water retrieval. It is hard to imagine, but the ability to safely fulfill this basic need is a real and often insurmountable challenge.

There is hope. For many of these people, groundwater serves as a promising resource that can dramatically improve quality of life and provide opportunity for advancement far beyond basic needs. The main challenge is access. A local organization working to solve this problem, with a focus on long-term sustainability, is Lifetime Wells International (LWI).

The mission at Lifetime Wells International is to improve qualities of life in the developing world and reduce the number of people without access to clean water through working with local communities to install, maintain, and monitor water resource infrastructure. Their efforts are currently focused in Ghana and Tanzania. The primary method involves drilling a water supply well and installing a handpump in the heart of the community. While LWI helps communities transition from a potentially dangerous and unreliable surface water source to well-produced safe and reliable water from beneath the ground, LWI is spearheading the start of true change in the community’s access to a safe, reliable water source.

To maximize the lifetime of a well, Lifetime Wells International works with each community to develop and implement a water resource management system. LWI actively recruits and trains local pump mechanics capable of monitoring, servicing, and repairing the water resource infrastructure. By ensuring communities understand and are equipped to manage their new water systems and guaranteeing access to pump mechanics skilled in necessary maintenance and repair, LWI works to create reliable, safe, and sustainable water resources and possibilities for greater advancements in people’s quality of life. Since 2015, Brickhouse Environmental has been an active supporter of LWI’s mission and encourages you to take a closer look at their ongoing work at www.lifetimewellsinternational.org.

Historic Fill

August 7, 2018

Uncovering historic fill can be an unwanted surprise for a real estate development project. The need for unexpected testing and possible landfill disposal can crush a project budget. However, with proper due diligence and planning, you can avoid unexpected delays and costs.

What is Historic Fill?
Historic Fill is non-indigenous material that was previously placed on a property in order to raise the topographic elevation of the site. The fill material was typically imported from offsite, and had nothing to do with the operations conducted onsite. The material generally contains mixtures of soil and residuals, including coal or wood ash, foundry sands, construction or demolition debris, and/or dredge spoils. The source of the material is usually undocumented, and problems arise because it is often contaminated by residual metals and/or hydrocarbon compounds at concentrations exceeding regulatory cleanup standards.

Since historic fill is not federally regulated, various state agencies have developed their own specific definitions for “historic fill” in their states, and they have differing requirements for its management and remediation. Pennsylvania and New Jersey have some of the more robust regulations and policies on historic fill, but their approaches are very different. It is important to know the differences (see below).

How to Limit Surprises
Proper environmental due diligence (a Phase I ESA) should identify whether there is the potential for contaminated historic fill to be present on a property. If the potential is identified, Phase II sampling and analysis can confirm whether fill is contaminated, and whether it falls under that state’s definition of historic fill.

Historic fill is often found in urban locations, but can be found in suburban and rural locations, as well. The approach for assessing the fill should be site-specific, based on the project goals and design, geotechnical considerations, and State-specific regulations.

For instance, often times a site will have soil/fill material that is not physically suitable for constructing a building, based on a geotechnical study. The unsuitable soil/fill is shipped offsite. If this fill is classified as contaminated historic fill, it would need to be sent to a permitted landfill, at a cost of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. This could obviously cause major project delays and cost overruns. However, if this issue was identified during due diligence, the problem could have been avoided, or renegotiated upfront.

Different States Have Different Requirements
In most states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, there is no regulatory requirement to physically remove contaminated historic fill from the property. It can remain onsite. However, between these two states, not only is historic fill defined differently, but there can be significant differences in how the fill can be managed onsite, potential residual liabilities, and ongoing reporting and care obligations. Here are some highlights:

New Jersey

The biggest difference between Pennsylvania and New Jersey is that, as currently defined by statute, historic fill meets the definition of a discharge within New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11), and therefore requires remediation.

Based on this requirement for remediation, the NJDEP has enacted regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.4 and the NJDEP Historic Fill Material Technical Guidance Document) detailing requirements for the investigation and remediation of historic fill. Consistent with New Jersey Technical Regulations, a series of reporting and administrative filings will also be required to document the presence, delineation, remediation, and certifications for remediation of historic fill. In addition, the reporting and filings are required to be approved and signed by a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) registered in the State of New Jersey.

There is flexibility in selecting the remedial strategy, and it can be tailored to property uses (i.e. residential vs. industrial use). The fill can be left onsite, if desired, by “remediating” through the use of engineering controls (e.g. capping at residential establishments), or institutional controls (e.g. deed notice), and a Soil Remediation Permit to ensure the continued protectiveness of the engineering control. But even this simplest of remedial strategies still requires a full delineation of the historic fill, the previously referenced administrative filings, and long-term reporting and care obligations until the controls and Remedial Action Permit are removed.

It should also be noted that New Jersey’s “Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act” requires the NJDEP to map regions of the state where large areas of historic fill exist and make this information available to the public. These maps are currently available, which is useful in conducting due diligence prior to purchase of a property, but can have other implications if you already own the property.

Pennsylvania

The management and handling of all fill material in Pennsylvania is regulated by the PADEP’s Management of Fill Policy (August 7, 2010). In this policy, defined classes of fill material include clean fill, regulated fill, and historic fill. The biggest differences between Pennsylvania and New Jersey are that, in Pennsylvania:

– there is no obligation to remediate historic fill, and

– the State has not mapped regions of the State where historic fill is known to exist.

If fill is known to have existed prior to 1988, even if it is identified as contaminated, it is defined as historic fill and there is no obligation to clean it up or delineate it. However, if you dig it up, and send it offsite, it must be sampled, analyzed, and characterized as a waste, unless sampling demonstrates that the material meets clean fill standards.

Also, in PA, if materials were buried or used to fill an area prior to 1980, it may not be classified as a waste at all, since it pre-dated Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act (Act 97).

Final Thoughts
The discovery of contaminated historic fill can introduce unwanted delays and significant cost increases to a development project. The extent of these impacts can be affected greatly by the particular State in which the project is being conducted, especially in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Therefore, it is important to have a strong understanding of fill management policies and regulations, before digging into your real estate development project.

Project delays and cost increases can be avoided, or at least managed, by including historic fill evaluations as part of your environmental and geotechnical due diligence studies. By considering the potential presence of historic fill upfront, and incorporating its presence into your preliminary site design, you can avoid costly surprises during the project, and stay on-time and in-budget.

If you have questions regarding the management of historic fill, or other related issues, you may contact David Farrington, P.G. at dfarrington@brickhouse-environmental.com, or Alfred Yates, P.E. at ayates@brickhouse-environmental.com for further detail. Or feel free to call us at 610-692-5770.