The Association for Environmental Health and Soils (AEHS) is hosting the 40th Annual International (East Coast) Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water, and Energy in Amherst, Massachusetts from October 21 to 24, 2024. This AEHS conference integrates a variety of topics for the environmental science community and regulators. It offers an opportunity to stay updated on recent techniques and technologies for addressing environmental issues and solutions. SCS Engineers technical advisors and environmental professionals are attending the 2024 AEHS conference and are available to answer and discuss solutions for the covered topics.
PFAS
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, called PFAS, is a major topic covered during the sessions. Three workshops and several presentation sessions are addressing various aspects of PFAS challenges. Sessions will cover an overview of methods and materials for field sampling activities and published sampling protocols, guidance, and procedures. They will also address various analytical methods for evaluating PFAS in drinking water, wastewater, solids, and biosolids, as well as the best practices for field collection and the available analytical methods and their applicability.
PFAS Treatment
Another significant topic will be PFAS treatment and remediation. One session covers an innovative approach combining foam fractionation with supercritical water oxidation to eliminate PFAS from various waste streams. Destructive technologies, including electrical discharge plasma treatment, thermal destruction, enhanced oxidation, and sonolysis, have shifted from the laboratory bench to the field. Therefore, one of the presentations will cover the various mechanisms used to destroy PFAS, compare early performance data to determine effectiveness and highlight successes and obstacles that may occur as these technologies move from pilot scale to full-scale implementation.
Metals Remediation and VOCs
Other topics include metals remediation, such as an in-situ chemical fixation process that co-precipitates arsenic via the formation of an iron-arsenic oxyhydroxide complex, and the remediation of lithium, molybdenum, boron, and arsenic at coal combustion residual sites. The investigation and remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs) will also be discussed in various sessions, covering the use of real-time 3-dimensional data visualization and analysis during a high-resolution site characterization, investigation using the membrane interface hydraulic profiling tool for the delineation of cVOCs and remediation using emulsified zero-valent iron for direct source mass destruction.
Regulations and Adapting Technologies for Emerging Contaminants
Other topics include bioremediation, vapor intrusion, statistics, sustainable remediation tools, climate change and resiliency, managing environmental data, in-situ remediation, and environmental security. The event dedicates one session to emerging environmental contaminants in drinking water, such as microplastics, nanomaterials, and PFAS. This session will also discuss the current status of United States regulations and provide a forecast of the potential trajectory of regulations and the corresponding legal landscape over the next one to two years.
AEHS also organizes a similar West Coast conference. The West Coast 34th Annual International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy, and Air Conference will be held March 17-20, 2025, in San Diego, California.
Additional Resources:
Statistics is the science of learning from data and using the results in many industries for various purposes. As environmental consultants, we use statistics primarily to help clients meet regulatory requirements because statistical analyses can provide valuable insights and guidance, potentially saving our clients’ money and time.
Various statistical methods can help streamline assessment and remediation concerning contaminated site cleanup, ultimately facilitating site closure. Statistical analysis can help to answer some important questions that arise throughout the life cycle of a project. The table below summarizes some common statistical questions, statistical methods, and data visualizations (statistical questions modified from ITRC, 2013*).
Statistics is one tool for solving client problems in combination with other methods. However, it is important to note that the output of a statistical analysis is only as good as the input, meaning that the collection of quality field samples and adherence to relevant standard operating procedures are crucial to the quality of statistical analysis.
In conclusion, while statistical analysis is a powerful tool for addressing client environmental issues, its effectiveness depends heavily on the accuracy of data collection and strict adherence to established protocols, ensuring reliable and meaningful results for our clients.
SCS has successfully implemented each of these methods on project sites. Future blogs will describe specific methodologies and processes with actual case studies useful for addressing the following,
Background Studies: after calculating the appropriate background level or establishing a background data set, that level or data set could support the removal of a particular contaminant from further consideration or serve as the remediation objective.
Groundwater trend analysis: to evaluate whether groundwater concentrations are increasing, decreasing, or stable/no trend, which could support the completion of long-term groundwater monitoring. This approach can also help estimate the time to attain cleanup goals.
Spatial Statistics: use several methods to evaluate spatial hot spots and outliers, groundwater plume stability, and groundwater concentration or elevation gradients, which can aid in evaluating areas of high concentrations requiring further evaluation.
*Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) Framework for Developing Quality ITRC Technical and Regulatory Guidance Documents, Revised December 2013
Additional Site Assessment and Remediation Resources:
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…
SCS Engineers welcomes two experienced environmental consulting professionals to our St. Louis regional office.
Susan Robertson, MBA, is Senior Project Manager. Robertson’s comprehensive environmental due diligence and remedial work rejuvenates prime commercial properties back to health while supporting municipal and private industries’ plans for economic redevelopment.
In the environmental industry for nearly 20 years, Susan has worked on a wide range of consulting projects, including environmental due diligence Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments. She performs Indoor Air Quality and radon assessments, lead-based paint, and asbestos inspections.
Susan is known for her Brownfield-Voluntary Cleanup Program work under the Missouri Department of Natural Resources¹, Illinois EPA Tiered Approach to Corrective Action, and Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Action risk assessments and historic preservation projects under the Missouri Department of Economic Development².
Julia Hunter is an SCS Project Professional. Julia has five years of experience in environmental consulting, primarily performing environmental due diligence for commercial and telecommunications clients nationwide. She has a Master of Science in Environmental Geoscience from St. Louis University.
Hunter uses the highest standards of care in her due diligence and building sciences investigations, analyzing the data to determine if a property is feasible for its proposed use and future requirements to speed the closure process and ensure no surprises.
“The service these two women perform for our clients is strategic and comprehensive,” states Rachel McShane, SCS – St. Louis project director. “The results of their work help determine the true value of a property before purchase, and if there are any environmental or health concerns, how to remediate them.”
Additional Resources:
Environmental due diligence is a form of proactive environmental risk management typically conducted before purchasing, selling, or leasing a property or business. Due diligence investigations can help prevent costly environmental liabilities by identifying them early in the transaction, thereby protecting all parties’ interests. There is an increased opportunity for significant cost-savings when the hired consultant accounts for tangential aspects during their investigation.
Environmental due diligence encompasses tangential aspects that are not the primary focus of the investigation. Aspects such as these may indirectly impact the environmental risks or liabilities associated with the property or business or the transaction’s overall feasibility or value.
Tangential Aspects of Environmental Assessment: A Case Study
A major oil company requested environmental due diligence for a large property acquisition. The property acquisition was part of a larger company acquisition and involved hundreds of oil and gas well locations, facilities, tanks, and equipment. It was necessary to modify the Phase I assessment for the work. Of the hundreds of well locations, 50 were chosen for Phase I work and field verification. According to the consultants, any environmental liabilities exceeding $2 million must be identified during this evaluation. Phase I examined the locations of wells for potential environmental liabilities, such as petroleum releases, but did not examine the wells themselves. Even though the consultants were experts in evaluating the condition of oil and gas wells, the oil company addressed this aspect of the investigation in-house. The company did not consider the tangential legal implications, liability for plugging costs, potential impacts on property value, and potential penalties for non-compliance with regulations.
Many wells excluded from the consultants’ due diligence were over 50 years old and out of operation. The company’s in-house investigators did not perform a field review. The result was an underestimation of the number of wells that required plugging and their associated costs. The estimate for plugging a well was between $20,000 and $30,000 per well. The plugging costs for this transaction were much higher, ranging from $80,000 to $120,000 per well, resulting in a $42 million increase. The oil company made a mistake in thinking the plugging costs were insignificant. Environmental due diligence should always include tangential factors.
Additional examples of tangential aspects of environmental due diligence might include the following:
The information obtained during or upon completing an investigation can inform negotiations and contractual arrangements between the parties involved in the transaction. Environmental consultants could spot some issues big enough to kill a deal. Other issues may allow buyers to adjust the purchase price or negotiate an indemnity to shift financial responsibility for environmental risk. It may also be possible to purchase environmental insurance for sufficient financial protection.
The specific steps involved in environmental due diligence depend on the type and scope of the transaction, as well as any applicable regulations or guidelines. Consult an experienced environmental professional to ensure that your due diligence process meets all your needs and requirements. Find out more about SCS’s environmental due diligence services.
Introduction
Contamination at thousands of shopping centers across California from previous business operations presents problems for property owners who wish to continue commercial use, redevelop, and maintain property value. Commercial property remediation targets returning these buildings and land to predevelopment conditions, presenting opportunities for reuse and redevelopment.
One property owner discovered that securing adequate funding and working closely with state and regional regulatory agencies leads to success despite changing regulations and oversimplifying regulatory health risk assessment methods. The Draft Cal-EPA Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DSVIG) suggests changes to the methods in which vapor phase transport and potential health risks are modeled and calculated for occupants of buildings with known soil or groundwater contamination beneath them. These changes, the result of a multi-year working group collaboration, recommend an arguably more conservative calculation of indoor air quality. The changes rely on EPA work and guidance, with empirically derived attenuation factors (AFs), which will increase the number of sites requiring additional environmental assessment and mitigation to achieve health risk standards. Although the DSVIG is currently draft guidance, there is evidence that regional regulatory agencies have already adopted AFs in calculating indoor air quality.
Diamond Bar Commercial Center Assessment and Mitigation
Drucker Survivors Trust owns and operates a multi-tenant commercial building in Diamond Bar, California, including a dry cleaner at one time. The former cleaners caused an unauthorized release of dry cleaning solvent containing chlorinated volatile organic compounds to the subsurface during its operation.
Financing for this all too common situation requires environmental due diligence in the form of research commonly completed in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment followed by an assessment to characterize potential liabilities associated with chlorinated solvent releases before lenders provide funding.
Regulatory oversight in California can either be voluntarily engaged or involuntarily if assessment activities on an adjacent or nearby property indicate the presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in the subsurface linked to dry cleaning operations in the vicinity.
The Drucker Survivors Trust sought approval from the applicable regulatory agency, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), to assess and mitigate the chlorinated solvent release to ensure the protection of human health and reduce environmental liabilities associated with the property.
Regulatory closure is the acceptance of assessment and remediation activities by the governing regulatory entity to bring the site into compliance. Compliance, in this case, required assessment and mitigation of beneficial use groundwater underlying the property impacted by the solvent release and completing soil vapor assessment and health risk screening calculations under current state and federal guidelines.
Guidance on vapor assessment and associated health risk screening methods have changed rapidly in California state environmental regulations. As environmental engineers and consultants, SCS professionals manage an extensive list of vapor assessment, health risk assessment, and vapor intrusion mitigation projects resolving these vapor–related issues.
To start this project, the SCS team prepared a successful grant application securing more than $650,000 in funding from the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SB 445, established in 2014). This state-provided grant money enables the assessment and mitigation necessary to close with the LARWQCB.
Subsurface assessment activities defined the extent and scale of chlorinated solvent impacts to soil vapor, soil, and groundwater, enabling the design of a remediation program. To reduce the groundwater contamination to cleanup levels set by the LARWQCB, SCS Engineers designed and implemented an injection program to deliver engineered chemicals directly to the groundwater plume. The injected chemicals destroy the chlorinated solvents via in situ chemical reduction and stimulation of biological degradation.
While challenging drilling conditions precluded previous consultants from attempting groundwater remediation, SCS industry experts safely achieved up to a 99 percent concentration reduction within the groundwater plume. SCS designed a soil vapor assessment that relied more on site-specific data collection and less on conservative default assumptions while conforming to the most current regulatory guidance targeted at minimal impact on the building tenants.
SCS managed all aspects of the project, including grant requirements and communication between the client, regional and state water board staff, city staff, and subcontractors. Obtaining and managing entrance under state waste discharge requirements is necessary, and SCS completed all necessary permitting and reporting requirements to facilitate the groundwater mitigation activities. Careful planning and experience with similar projects minimized impacts on tenants and kept the project on a strict timeline with no missed regulatory deadlines. SCS continues working with the LARWQCB to conclude the client’s final closure requirements and is in the process of applying for an additional $900,000 in SCAP funding to implement the final stages of the project targeted at obtaining final regulatory closure.
Changes Coming to Regulatory Guidance
Recent changes to regulatory guidance in California are arguably making obtaining closure on sites with vapor intrusion health risk concerns more difficult to achieve. The Draft Cal-EPA Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DSVIG) suggests changes to the methods in which vapor phase transport and potential health risks are modeled and calculated for occupants of buildings with known soil or groundwater contamination beneath them. These changes, which result from a multi-year working group collaboration, recommend a more extensive and site-specific data collection effort. They include indoor air quality calculation methods relying on EPA work and guidance and empirically derived attenuation factors (AFs) which some would argue lead to overestimating potential health risks.
The consequences of the DSVIG are potentially significant if adopted as is and appear likely to result in more sites being “screened in” with vapor intrusion issues and more sites requiring mitigation. The impact, resultant costs, and possibly detrimental secondary effects such as decreases in affordable housing production, particularly in urban infill areas. And while none would argue with appropriate protection of health risk, the question is whether the studies and empirical data used to support the DSVIG represents the best available science and is truly representative and predictive of risk.
The DSVIG adopts an attenuation rate of 0.03 for the flux of both soil and sub-slab vapor to indoor air based on a previous 2012 EPA Study comprised of empirical data collected from buildings arguably not representative of modern construction in California.
The development of a reliable screening level attenuation factor for California based on high-quality, recent, California-specific data:
1) Will be protective of human health, as no toxicological imperative or basis supports a call for accelerated or immediate action (as evidenced by the fact that the DSVIG workgroup commenced its work in 2014 and issued the review draft in 2020).
2) Will ensure California’s environmental policy satisfies the gold standard for data quality and insightful analysis in which the state once took pride.
3) Will not unnecessarily decimate the California housing development market. The empirically derived screening level AF in the DSVIG is overly conservative based on the available data. More accurate empirical data and measurement methods for site-specific measurement are available.
With respect, oversimplifying the VI health risk assessment methods has constrained the environmental community’s ability to apply science-based health risk screenings, often resulting in costs associated with additional environmental assessment and mitigation. An additional revision to the DSVIG to utilize a screening level AF more reflective of the current California data and building specifications could save state resources, increase infill development by reducing urban sprawl, promote housing development, all while protecting human health.
About the Author: Keith Etchells is a professional geologist and hydrogeologist with over two decades of experience assisting clients in managing environmental risks associated with ownership, transfer, or operation of commercial, industrial, and waste disposal properties. His particular technical expertise involves aspects of groundwater science and engineering relevant to contaminated sites and landfills, including supervision and conduct of subsurface data acquisition, remedial design and implementation, conceptual site model development, aquifer testing, extraction well design, groundwater quality evaluation and treatment, vapor intrusion health risk assessment and mitigation, predictive modeling, and contaminated soil and groundwater remediation design.
He is responsible for designing analytical, geotechnical, and hydrogeological data collection programs to complete subsurface assessment and remediation. He has prepared subsurface assessment documents, property mitigation plans, vapor intrusion risk assessment documents, soil management plans, aquifer characterization documents, conceptual site models, and groundwater remedial design and implementation documents.
Recent changes to regulatory guidance in California are arguably making obtaining closure on sites with vapor intrusion health risk concerns more difficult to achieve. The Draft Cal-EPA Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DSVIG) suggests changes to the methods in which vapor phase transport and potential health risks are modeled and calculated for occupants of buildings with known soil or groundwater contamination beneath them. These changes, which result from a multi-year working group collaboration, recommend a more extensive and site-specific data collection effort. They include indoor air quality calculation methods relying on EPA work and guidance and empirically derived attenuation factors (AFs) which some would argue lead to overestimating potential health risks.
The consequences of the DSVIG are potentially significant if adopted as is and appear likely to result in more sites being “screened in” with vapor intrusion issues and more sites requiring mitigation. The impact, resultant costs, and possibly detrimental secondary effects include decreases in affordable housing production, particularly in urban infill areas. And while none would argue with appropriate protection of health risk, the question is whether the studies and empirical data used to support the DSVIG represents the best available science and is truly representative and predictive of risk.
The DSVIG adopts an attenuation rate of 0.03 for the flux of both soil and sub-slab vapor to indoor air based on a previous 2012 EPA Study comprised of empirical data collected from buildings arguably not representative of modern construction in California. The development of a reliable screening level attenuation factor for California based on high-quality, recent, California-specific data:
1) Will be protective of human health, as no toxicological imperative or basis supports a call for accelerated or immediate action (as evidenced by the fact that the DSVIG workgroup commenced its work in 2014 and issued the review draft in 2020).
2) Will ensure California’s environmental policy satisfies the gold standard for data quality and insightful analysis in which the state once took pride.
3) Will not unnecessarily decimate the California housing development market. The empirically derived screening level AF in the DSVIG is overly conservative based on the available data. More accurate empirical data and measurement methods for site-specific measurement are available.
Oversimplifying the VI health risk assessment methods has constrained the environmental community’s ability to apply science-based health risk screenings, often resulting in costs associated with additional environmental assessment and mitigation. An additional revision to the DSVIG to utilize a screening level AF more reflective of the current California data and building specifications could save state resources, increase infill development by reducing urban sprawl, promote housing development, all while protecting human health.
Take a deeper dive into this topic in the Daily Transcript article Vapor intrusion rules hamper infill projects.
“The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law last month, will dedicate more than $1.5 billion to the U.S. EPA Brownfields program. The Act includes hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to Multipurpose Grants, Assessment Grants, Cleanup Grants, Revolving Loan Fund Grants, and technical assistance intended to improve equity, create jobs, and mitigate environmental degradation.”
CCLR has provided the expected breakdown and timelines from EPA. The EPA has hundreds of millions of dollars allocated for FY22 that will be applied for in July and awarded in November 2022. This timeline is different and with much larger individual grants possible, up to $10mil per grant.
SCS Engineers has a stellar win rate for brownfields grant writing and implementing brownfields programs. Please let our brownfields and remediation experts know if you have any questions or if we can provide assistance in grant support.
Click here to learn more and obtain support and funding for your community’s brownfields project.
Brownfield development continues to be a hot topic for developers and investors, and they offer excellent opportunities – when you do your homework. SCS Engineers, an environmental consulting firm with 40 years of experience, offers a few tips when considering a Brownfield site.
Although we’ve successfully redeveloped hundreds of properties, one of SCS’s most visible Brownfields projects is the San Diego Padres Petco Park in downtown San Diego, completed in the early 2000s. The site for Petco Park was once a commercial and industrial area with former land uses such as auto repair facilities and gas stations, laundry facilities, and paint and lumber storage facilities. On top of that, it also stored petroleum hydrocarbon and hazardous materials.
What is a Brownfield?
Brownfield land is any previously developed land that is not being used or is under-utilized and may require environmental mitigation to redevelop. These properties are common in many urban areas and often present cost-effective, profitable redevelopment opportunities.
The development of Petco Park is a classic example of a brownfield project, which brought the San Diego Padres to downtown San Diego within a 26-city block portion of the East Village area now known as the Ballpark District. Before developing this beautiful stadium, as well as the new hotel, residential, and commercial development that blossomed around it, this area of East Village San Diego was underutilized. The area housed various commercial and industrial properties dating back to the 1800s, many of which had a legacy of environmental issues.
Because of the aggressive development schedule, and to streamline the redevelopment of the Petco Park and the Ballpark District, SCS and the local health department (the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health) worked together to create a dynamic approach to its redevelopment of contaminated properties. This approach, embodied in the Property Mitigation Plan (PMP) (also known as a Soil Management Plan), is tailored to the specific property uses as an efficient means to address and mitigate environmental issues (such as dealing with contaminated soils) during the property construction and development process. If enrolled under oversight by the appropriate regulatory agency, the PMP serves as the blueprint for mitigation, soil management, and soil reuse. And when followed, it is designed to result in the closure of environmental cases for the site’s approved uses.
Overall, brownfields typically have environmental issues that can impede new development. But suppose these issues are identified during the due diligence process and integrated into the development and construction processes. In that case, redevelopment protecting future occupants and the environment is achieved while often presenting cost-effective and profitable redevelopment opportunities.
What can you put on a brownfield? Can it be used for residential units?
A brownfield is potentially useful for any structures – including residential. San Diego has numerous examples of brownfield redevelopment, including former burn dumps and landfills, railroad facilities, gas stations, automobile repair facilities, dry cleaners, and more. The feasibility and cost are dependent upon the environmental issues unique to each site. Cleanup standards will be stricter for residential uses, and in some cases, it may not be cost-effective to achieve those standards. Evaluations determine what uses are feasible.
How do you evaluate a Brownfields site?
One should proactively address environmental issues to reduce the risk of cost and schedule overruns or future liability issues while operating these properties as-is or during the due diligence or pre-development process. Identifying environmental risks before acquiring properties is critical, as is assigning potential costs to these risks. Depending on the nature of the transaction, these items are often useful as leverage during negotiations.
Brownfields are normally evaluated by performing a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to first study historic site information and previous uses. A Phase II study may be performed if the Phase I ESA identifies potential issues (known as Recognized Environmental Conditions). Phase II includes collecting and analyzing samples (i.e., soil, soil vapor, and groundwater) to assess whether environmental impacts are present. If enough sampling is completed, the extent of impacts can be estimated.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has standard protocols for Phase I ESA studies. However, as an integral part of your team, your environmental consultant can do more than meet these technical standards. The result of the evaluation provides you with an understanding of how this information will impact your project.
If contamination exists, what do I do?
Your first concern is to get an estimate of how much contamination is present and what it will cost to address, which will affect your bottom line and project feasibility. It’s also important to know that cleaning up contamination is manageable and can even be left on-site during construction and through your planned use in some cases. Your environmental consultant helps you mitigate any risks.
Is funding available to help pay for the site investigation and remediation?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has grant programs that can pay for the assessment and cleanup of brownfields, but these programs are only available to governmental and non-profit organizations. However, a private entity may be able to team with these eligible parties. In addition, grants are available from agencies such as the California State Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Toxic Substances Control for certain soil and groundwater contamination types from gas station or dry cleaner releases. Each grant has its eligibility criteria, and in general, the entity that “caused” the contamination is not eligible. Federal, state, and local tax incentives may also be available.
Obtaining a grant or loan with the help of a qualified environmental consultant or an environmental attorney can be the difference in acquiring, cleaning up, and redeveloping a property. The grants don’t typically cover all the costs associated with the necessary cleanups, but they can cover most of these costs.
I hear insurance can help pay for cleanups as well as help protect buyers.
It can. A new property owner can obtain an environmental insurance policy to cover cleanup requirements, third-party claims for bodily injury and property damage, and associated legal expenses resulting from pollution or contamination. These insurance policies are available with various term lengths, and deductible amounts to satisfy the concerns of lenders or equity investors.
Other solutions include “insurance archaeology” to find old insurance policies that may have coverage for “pollution conditions.” Many firms, including SCS, do this type of work, sometimes on a contingency fee basis.
What are some good risk management strategies for brownfields?
The most important risk management strategy is to have a thorough understanding of the environmental issues on the site and how those issues can impact your redevelopment plans and bottom line. It is critical to have environmental and legal support experienced in strategies for identifying, anticipating, and managing risks on Brownfields.
Are brownfields sites good investment opportunities?
Brownfields can be excellent investment opportunities if you perform thorough due diligence and understand the risks of each site. Many potential sites exist in desirable locations or emerging areas. They should be available below market value and may have been on the market for a long time.
With proper planning and the help of a qualified environmental consultant, the mitigation or remediation of these impacts can be incorporated into the acquisition and development processes and result in a vibrant, profitable project that is protective of human health and the environment.
Author Luke Montague is a vice president with SCS Engineers in its San Diego office.
You’ll find resources for funding brownfield redevelopment here.
SCS’s next webinar helps our clients prepare to capitalize on upcoming opportunities to redevelop contaminated properties as a result of market demands, stimulus funding, and traditional Brownfields grant programs. In this live, non-commercial presentation we’ll cover the following:
This educational, non-commercial webinar with a Q&A forum is free and open to all who want to learn more about meeting the environmental challenges these new opportunities offer. We recommend this month’s discussion for developers, contractors, municipal officials, city managers interested in using stimulus funds for local development, and advisors such as banks, insurance firms, and attorneys to private and public entities.
DATE: Thursday, April 29, 2021
TIME: 2 p.m. ET, 1 CT, Noon MT, 11 PT
You will receive a Zoom email with your link to attend. Do not share this link.
