In March 2024, the EPA launched a new Office of Climate Adaptation and Sustainability that supports efforts to build resilience to climate change and promote sustainability in support of the agency’s mission and its partnerships. Federal agencies have been making progress in efforts to build adaptive capacity and resilience across federal operations.
Today’s publication of EPA’s 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan is part of a coordinated release of more than twenty federal agencies’ climate adaptation plans that highlight efforts across the federal government. The Plan describes agency actions to address the impacts of climate change and help build a more climate-resilient nation. The plan expands the agency’s efforts to ensure its programs, facilities, workforce, and operations are increasingly resilient to climate change impacts.
Highlights from EPA’s 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan are included below.
Fostering a Climate-Ready Workforce – The EPA is building a climate-literate workforce through ongoing education and training to ensure staff are equipped with an understanding of projected climate impacts, the vulnerability of EPA programs to these impacts, and adaptation approaches. One example is the agency-wide Climate Conversations webinar series helping to build a community of practice and encourages peer-to-peer sharing of experiences.
Building Facility Resilience – EPA is continuing to conduct facility resiliency assessments to identify vulnerabilities to the impacts of climate change and make recommendations to increase facility resilience.
Developing Climate-Resilient Supply Chains – EPA has included an assessment of climate hazard risk as part of its overall Agency Supply Chain Risk Management plan. The agency plans to conduct supply chain risk assessments under the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act and the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act in fiscal year 2024.
Integrating Climate Resilience into External Funding Opportunities – EPA is modernizing its financial assistance programs to encourage investments by communities and Tribes that are more resilient in an era of climate change. To support this effort, the EPA launched an internal Climate-Resilient Investments Clearinghouse website to help managers of financial assistance programs incorporate climate adaptation and resilience considerations in the investment decisions the EPA makes each day.
Applying Climate Data and Tools to Decision Making – EPA is equipping communities and the recipients of financial resources with the tools, data, information, and technical support they need to assess their climate risks and develop the climate-resilience solutions most appropriate for them.
Integrating Climate Adaptation into Rulemaking Processes – EPA is integrating climate adaptation into its rulemaking processes where appropriate and in keeping with our statutory authorities to ensure they are effective even as the climate changes. For example, on March 14, 2024, EPA finalized a rule requiring a broad array of facilities that manage hazardous materials to develop response plans to prepare for the largest foreseeable discharges in adverse weather conditions, including more extreme weather conditions expected as the climate changes. EPA is also committed to applying climate change and environmental justice policy principles through National Environmental Policy Act reviews.
Additional Climate Adaption Resources:
FREE LIVE WEBINAR & Q/A
We hope you can join SCS Engineers for our next client webinar. Feel free to share this invitation with others who may be interested!
Live on Thursday, July 18, 2024, at 2:00 pm Eastern Time for 1 hour
You will receive a unique Zoom link to join the event. SCS Engineers never shares or sells your information.
The amount of organic waste produced in North America burdens waste management systems and, when placed in landfills, creates methane and uses up valuable landfill space or gets incinerated. In response, municipalities and private companies are diverting organic wastes from landfills and recycling them into high-quality compost. While theoretically simple, there is a logical series of processes and parameters, some specific to each site, to reach the goals communities and solid waste management organizations hope to achieve.
As with all SCS Client Webinars, we’re here to answer your questions throughout the forum and afterward. Our panelists take us through the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority’s (SCRRRA) proposed compost facility. This facility reflects a well-thought-out strategy that leverages advanced composting technologies and engineering practices to create a sustainable and economically viable operation.
Join SCRRRA Executive Director David Aldridge and Professional Engineer Greg McCarron as they step through the Design, Siting, & Permitting of SCRRRA’s Municipal Compost Facility. The live educational presentation is on Thursday, July 18th, at 2:00 pm (Eastern) and includes an open Q&A forum.
Recommended for These Audiences
This educational, non-commercial webinar with Q&A is free and open to all who want to learn more about composting programs. We recommend this month’s discussion for private and public solid waste management, municipal government, and agency staff looking to begin or refine a composting program as part of their waste management strategy. It also provides insight to processors, compostable product manufacturers, haulers, citizens, retailers, and businesses interested in reusing what was once considered waste into a valuable commodity with environmental benefits.
A Certificate of Attendance is available on request following the live session.
You will receive a unique link to join the event. Do not share the link. SCS Engineers never shares or sells your information.
CAN’T MAKE THE LIVE SESSION? NO PROBLEM.
On October 16, 2023, US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program released an updated toxicological review for inorganic arsenic, which includes proposed changes to the toxicity factors. Many federal, state, and local agencies use IRIS toxicity factors to assess environmental risk and establish risk-based environmental standards.
For example, the State of Florida and Miami-Dade County derived their direct exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) using these toxicity values, per Chapter 62-777, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 24-44(2), Code of Miami-Dade County. If adopted, the updated toxicity values will lead to lower arsenic cleanup standards and, as a result, will significantly impact the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites throughout Florida.
Toxicity Factors Under Review and Potential Impact
The specific toxicity factors under review are the oral cancer slope factor (CSFo) and the oral reference dose (RfDo). In the current draft of the updated assessment, the IRIS Program has proposed a CSFo of 53 mg/kg/day for combined cancer risk and an overall RfDo of 0.031 µg/kg/day to protect against all noncancer adverse health effects associated with inorganic arsenic across all life stages.
To illustrate the significance of these updates, we used the proposed CSFo to re-calculate the State of Florida SCTLs. The resulting SCTLs would decrease from the current Residential SCTL of 2.1 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg and from the current Commercial/Industrial SCTL of 12 mg/kg to 0.4 mg/kg (assuming all other exposure factors remain the same). If the proposed changes to the toxicity factors are approved, remediation in Florida could feel the impact. An environmental engineer/consultant knowledgeable in due diligence, background assessments, and risk assessment/management can help you navigate these changing regulatory requirements.
Rulemaking Process At Midpoint
The following links will direct you to the proposed toxicological review, a summary of the comments received during the public comment/peer review process, and information on the general assessment review process:
Given the potential impact on the cleanup standards, it is important to remain current with this updated assessment’s development and keep our clients informed of the potential changes. EPA is reviewing over a hundred comments received on the October 2023 draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic. We understand that the final document’s projected release date will be announced once the Science Advisory Board delivers its peer-reviewed report. We’ll keep you informed.
Additional Resources:
About Arsenic
Arsenic is a naturally occurring trace element in the environment. It is in geological formations, and levels in soil can range from 1–40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Erosion, leaching, and some human activities can increase arsenic levels in soil. Arsenical pesticides were once commonly used in agriculture to maintain turf (e.g., golf courses, parks, etc.) and treat wood. While their use has been significantly restricted, residual concentrations can still be detected during an environmental site audit/assessment.
Land Remediation and Brownfields: Information, case studies, grants, and educational materials.
Meet our Authors: Environmental Scientist Anabel Rodriguez Garcia and Lisa Smith, a principal technical advisor and expert in risk-based corrective action.
New Regulations Impact Environmental Assessments
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently classified perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as the “Superfund” law. This new regulation will significantly affect real estate transactions, introducing stringent reporting requirements and complicating liability and insurance matters related to polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination.
Previously, Phase I property investigations did not have to consider evidence of releases of PFOA and PFOS. However, some did as a business risk similar to asbestos shingles or lead paint on woodwork. Now, environmental professionals must identify and report any releases or likely releases of these hazardous substances, which, in some cases, lead to more Phase II environmental sampling and remediation if significant contamination is confirmed.
Undertaking all appropriate inquiries—a Phase I site assessment—is one of several requirements for real estate purchasers to qualify for Superfund landowner liability protections. Others include complying with any reporting obligations and taking reasonable steps with respect to known contamination. Experienced consultants can help address the technical aspects of these requirements, typically working with experienced attorneys to address the legal aspects.
PFOA and PFOS, widely used in various industries due to their heat, water, and oil resistance, can contaminate commercial or industrial properties from various sources, including firefighting foams and PFAS manufacturing plants. During Phase I environmental assessments, evaluating the property’s historical and current use and nearby properties is crucial to identify potential PFAS sources. This analysis guides further investigations, such as Phase II assessments, where specific sampling and analysis can verify PFAS presence and concentration.
The primary mechanisms and pathways through which PFAS are released at industrial facilities typically include discharges of wastewater and stormwater; disposal of solid wastes on and off the site; accidental occurrences like leaks and spills; and stack and fugitive air emissions. Emissions from stacks can lead to the aerial dispersion of PFAS, depositing these substances onto soil and surface water. In some circumstances, PFAS can leach or otherwise contaminate groundwater and potentially migrate offsite.
Facilities Using PFAS in Processes
Secondary manufacturing facilities often utilize fluoropolymers and PFAS-based materials, which are produced at primary manufacturing sites, as part of their industrial processes. This includes applying coatings to finished products.
Chrome Plating: Facilities use PFAS as mist suppressants to minimize chromium emissions into the air, enhancing air quality and worker safety. Facilities employ PFAS as mist suppressants to reduce chromium emissions into the air, thereby improving air quality and enhancing worker safety. According to the USEPA (2021), half of the 1,339 chromium electroplating facilities in the United States continue to use PFAS-based mist and fume suppressants. Chrome electroplating is identified as the primary industrial process where PFAS is significantly used. In this method, PFAS function as surfactants, lowering the surface tension of the electrolyte solution.
Textiles and Leather Production: Manufacturers of performance fabrics for outdoor gear and military uniforms often use PFAS to provide water, stain, and fire resistance. Similarly, PFAS are applied in the leather tanning process to improve the water and stain resistance of products like furniture and clothing.
Electronics Manufacturing: PFAS are utilized for their heat- and chemical-resistant properties when producing circuit boards and semiconductors, ensuring the longevity and reliability of these components.
Maintenance and Mechanical Areas
Lubricants and Greases: Industries such as automotive and machinery maintenance use PFAS-enhanced lubricants and greases for their ability to withstand extreme temperatures and reduce wear and friction, which are crucial for protecting machinery under harsh conditions.
High-Temperature Applications: PFAS compounds are included in formulations used in industrial ovens, automotive wheel bearings, and several types of valves and pumps to maintain performance under extreme heat.
Commercial and Research Uses
Commercial Properties: Facilities such as kitchens, laundries, and workshops might have used PFAS-containing products like sealants and adhesives, leading to potential soil or groundwater contamination from spills or improper disposal.
Aerospace and Defense: Beyond firefighting foams, these sectors may use PFAS in applications like coated fabrics and specialty hydraulic fluids.
Research Facilities: These may experience contamination from PFAS due to spills or disposal practices during experimental or development phases.
Special Applications and Adjacent Properties
Hydraulic Fluids and Special Equipment: PFAS are crucial in applications requiring non-reactivity and thermal stability, such as in hydraulic systems of aircraft and high-temperature industrial settings, or in vacuum pumps.
Adjacent Contamination: Properties neighboring PFAS-utilizing facilities can also become contaminated through runoff or subsurface water flow, highlighting the need for comprehensive environmental assessments.
Paints, Varnishes, and Inks: PFOS-related chemicals are utilized in several ways within paints and varnishes. They serve as wetting, leveling, and dispersing agents and are also used to enhance gloss and antistatic properties. Furthermore, these chemicals are employed as additives in both dyes and inks.
Architectural Fabrics: PFAS, including fluoropolymers such as PTFE, are used in the manufacture of architectural fabrics, such as those used in the construction of roof domes, including large stadiums and transportation facilities.
Enforcement Discretion
EPA is aware that many public institutions, such as municipal landfills and wastewater treatment plants, do not have a choice when they receive household waste containing PFAS. EPA’s PFAS Discretion Memo lists several factors the EPA will consider when determining not to pursue an entity for PFAS response actions or costs under CERCLA. PFAS Discretion Memo
The widespread use and environmental persistence of PFAS underscore the importance of thorough environmental assessments to identify potential contamination sources. Understanding the extensive applications and potential pathways of PFAS contamination is crucial for effective management and remediation strategies in environmental assessments.
Reach SCS at .
Additional Resources:
On May 21, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced $25 million for states and territories to invest in clean and safe drinking water. This grant funding will benefit underserved, small, and disadvantaged communities by upgrading infrastructure to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, reducing exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), removing lead sources, and addressing additional local drinking water challenges.
Purpose of the EPA Safe Drinking Water Grants
EPA’s grant funding can support various projects to help communities address drinking water concerns, from household water quality testing to monitoring for drinking water contaminants, including PFAS, and identifying and replacing lead service lines. Funds may also support efforts to build the technical, financial, and managerial abilities of a water system’s operations and staff. Infrastructure projects—from transmission, distribution, and storage—that support drinking water quality improvements are also eligible for grant funding.
The FY 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act updated the eligible uses of the funds to include “one or more owners of drinking water wells that are not public water systems or connected to a public water system” as eligible beneficiaries of the FY 2024 SUDC grant funds awarded to states and territories.
The update allows FY 2024 SUDC funds to benefit owners of private drinking water wells for appropriate projects under the SUDC program. Because this is a new eligibility for the grant program, the EPA anticipates releasing updates with additional details to the grant Implementation Document later this year. The private well eligibility is authorized for the FY 2024 funding for states and territories only. Future Congressional action will determine eligibility for future funding.
Funding by State and Territory
The Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Community Grant Program, established under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, awards funding to states and territories non-competitively. EPA awards funding to states based on an allocation formula that includes factors for populations below the poverty level, small water systems, and underserved communities.
Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Communities (SUDC) Grant Allotments for States and Territories Based on FY 2024 Appropriations of $25 Million are in the Table Below
| State/Territory | 2024 Allotment | State/Territory | 2024 Allotment | |
| Alabama | $369,000 | Montana | $326,000 | |
| Alaska | $571,000 | Nebraska | $284,000 | |
| American Samoa | $141,000 | Nevada | $293,000 | |
| Arizona | $490,000 | New Hampshire | $259,000 | |
| Arkansas | $342,000 | New Jersey | $406,000 | |
| California | $1,624,000 | New Mexico | $393,000 | |
| Colorado | $462,000 | New York | $1,047,000 | |
| Connecticut | $273,000 | North Carolina | $679,000 | |
| Delaware | $195,000 | North Dakota | $210,000 | |
| D.C. | $151,000 | North Mariana Islands | $142,000 | |
| Florida | $961,000 | Ohio | $609,000 | |
| Georgia | $664,000 | Oklahoma | $492,000 | |
| Guam | $135,000 | Oregon | $425,000 | |
| Hawaii | $170,000 | Pennsylvania | $799,000 | |
| Idaho | $316,000 | Puerto Rico | $478,000 | |
| Illinois | $702,000 | Rhode Island | $168,000 | |
| Indiana | $422,000 | South Carolina | $375,000 | |
| Iowa | $348,000 | South Dakota | $240,000 | |
| Kansas | $381,000 | Tennessee | $403,000 | |
| Kentucky | $340,000 | Texas | $1,821,000 | |
| Louisiana | $641,000 | Utah | $291,000 | |
| Maine | $238,000 | U.S. Virgin Islands | $138,000 | |
| Maryland | $305,000 | Vermont | $210,000 | |
| Massachusetts | $348,000 | Virginia | $469,000 | |
| Michigan | $650,000 | Washington | $566,000 | |
| Minnesota | $382,000 | West Virginia | $315,000 | |
| Mississippi | $420,000 | Wisconsin | $439,000 | |
| Missouri | $524,000 | Wyoming | $238,000 |
Additional Resources for Safe Drinking Water Related to PFAS:
Sonya Betker is a zero waste and sustainability expert who brings decades of experience to SCS. Betker is a TRUE Advisor and a Sustainable Excellence Associate supporting her clients in sustainable resource management and waste reduction practices that minimize waste by reusing as many products as possible.
Betker’s expertise comes from leading regional, national, and global sustainability and circular economy programs for public and private clients by taking a holistic approach to lead and develop strategic programs. She is particularly proficient at maximizing partnerships for more efficient sustainability programs. Much of her experience has been in business management and brokering before her transition to environmental consulting.
Creating connections between stakeholders and excellent communication has been a constant throughout her career. These traits are especially valuable in zero waste and sustainability planning because they involve multiple stakeholders, including the public.
“Sonya brings field experience and a proven track record driving sustainability, building the business case highlighting potential revenue gains and cost savings with buy-in to sustainability,” states Betsy Powers, vice president and project director. “That provides more successful paths to circular systems, and our clients appreciate our sensitivity to costs.”
Betker’s background includes a B.S. in Business Management – Sustainability from the University of Wisconsin–Stout and over ten professional affiliations and certifications. She has a deep understanding of the most current sustainability issues, tools, and techniques and can communicate sustainability topics to diverse audiences. She can accurately assess sustainability risks and opportunities in an organization, community, or industry.
Betker is an author recognized in industry publications for her article “The future relationship of sustainability and traditional waste and recycling may be a key piece in solving our waste puzzle,” and featured in “Women in Waste” for her leadership skills.
“I’ve learned to look at the big picture of waste and recycling,” Betker said. “I like to look for commodities within markets and help with that circularity—reframing waste as a resource. Stopping or reusing food waste is a particularly rewarding area for many municipalities and businesses.”
Additional Resources:
Developers looking to build in or near wetlands in Florida must navigate a complex permitting process, particularly considering the recent court order affecting the State 404 Program. With the pause in the State 404 Program, developers must revert to the federal permitting process under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
As of February 15, 2024, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has temporarily lost its authority to issue State 404 Program permits.
The State 404 Program, effective December 22, 2020, was designed to streamline the permitting process by allowing the state to evaluate and issue permits for a broad range of water resources within the state to protect Florida’s waters, residents, and economy more efficiently. The EPA had approved Florida’s assumption of the CWA Section 404 program, making it one of the only three states with Michigan and New Jersey to have such authority.
A recent court ruling shifts the administration of the 404-permitting process in Florida back to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA, affecting developers, government projects, and any activities requiring dredge or fill permits in state-assumed waters. Specifically, the decision was part of a larger judicial examination of how agency deference is applied and its impacts on individual rights versus governmental interests.
Before starting any project, it is essential to determine if the land in question falls under the authority of the CWA Section 404. This involves identifying if the project area includes waters of the United States, including wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducts jurisdictional determinations to make this assessment.
It is advisable to schedule a pre-application meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. During this meeting, developers can present their project plans and receive guidance on the permitting process,
Depending on the project’s impact on the wetlands, developers may need to apply for either a Nationwide Permit (for minimal impacts) or an Individual Permit (for significant impacts). The application process requires detailed project descriptions, impact assessments, and mitigation plans.
A general Nationwide Permit may be suitable for activities with minimal adverse effects, streamlining the review process. An individual permit is required for potentially significant impacts, involving a more detailed review process, including public notice and opportunity for hearing.
General permits, like Nationwide Permits, are designed for activities with minimal environmental impacts and offer a streamlined review process. They apply broadly to numerous similar projects, reducing the need for detailed scrutiny of each case.
Individual permits, on the other hand, are required for projects that might have significant environmental impacts. This process is more rigorous, involving a detailed review, public notices, and opportunities for hearings to assess the potential environmental consequences more closely.
Developers must demonstrate efforts to avoid impacts on wetlands, minimize unavoidable impacts, and provide compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts through restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation of aquatic resources.
Certain projects may require consultation with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Additionally, the public and interested stakeholders can comment on Individual Permit applications.
Developers must ensure compliance with other relevant environmental regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, as part of the permitting process.
Given the current uncertainty and potential for further legal developments regarding Florida’s State 404 Program, developers should closely monitor any updates from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Consulting with legal and environmental professionals familiar with Florida’s federal and state wetland regulations is highly recommended to navigate this complex regulatory landscape effectively.
Developers in Florida working with their consultants on wetlands issues need to navigate a complex regulatory landscape. Determining if a project requires a Nationwide Permit for minimal impacts or an Individual Permit for significant impacts is crucial. Developers and their consultants should engage in pre-application meetings with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, understand the necessity of demonstrating efforts to avoid, minimize, and compensate for wetland impacts, and ensure compliance with other relevant regulations like the Endangered Species Act. Consulting with environmental legal professionals is highly recommended to navigate these regulations effectively.
Additional Environmental Permitting Resources & Protections in the U.S.
SCS Engineers announces that Lauren Romanazzi is leading the firm’s Bay Area Sustainable Materials Management operations. She reports to Senior Vice President Michelle Leonard, who leads the firm’s Sustainable Materials Management program for North America.
Romanazzi, an environmental services specialist, brings a wealth of experience and expertise to her role. She holds a Master of Public Administration in Sustainable Management from the Presidio Graduate School in San Francisco.
With over a decade of experience in government and integrated waste management, her areas of expertise include sustainable program development, contract management, policy implementation, stakeholder engagement, and customer service. She has also managed tasks involving organic waste disposal, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, regulatory compliance, and policy/program development.
Her eleven years with the City of San José have given her the tools to excel as the lead on Bay Area Sustainable Materials Management operations. Her responsibilities at the City included collaborating with stakeholders, managing Council District Neighborhood Clean-up projects, analyzing illegal dumping program data, overseeing the creation of the Zero Waste Element, which contributes to community carbon neutrality by 2030, as well as overseeing the implementation of a statewide policy on reduction of organic waste disposal and GHG emissions.
Senior Vice President Michelle Leonard states, “Hiring Lauren is another step in environmental excellence for our clients. She brings a unique blend of expertise and experience in waste management and policy implementation. Her journey from Assistant Environmental Services Specialist to Supervisor at the City of San José showcases a commitment to sustainability that makes her an asset to our firm and our clients.”
Additional Resources:
In recent years, the growing concern over the environmental and health impacts of nanoplastics has highlighted their pervasive presence and potential harmful effects on living organisms. The early 1970s saw the first reports of plastics polluting the marine environment. However, scientists only began to focus significantly on nanoplastics in the early 2000s, making it a significant area of study in scientific literature since then.
Both microplastics and nanoplastics, small plastic particles differing mainly in size, pose environmental and health risks. Sources of microplastics, defined as pieces smaller than five millimeters, include the breakdown of larger plastics, microbeads in cosmetics, and synthetic fibers from textiles. Nanoplastics, measuring less than 100 nanometers, challenge detection and removal efforts due to their minuscule size. Their potential for deep penetration and accumulation in organisms, including crossing cellular barriers, raises concerns about their impact on toxicology. These smaller plastics may result from further microplastic breakdown or specific engineering for specific uses.
Synthetic or semi-synthetic materials, plastics consist of long polymer chains and pose risks due to their environmental persistence and potential for bioaccumulation. The large surface area and hydrophobic nature of nanoplastics enable them to carry organic pollutants, including persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as PCBs, dioxins, DDT, PAHs, BPA, and phthalates, many of which disrupt endocrine functions. The process of pollutants associated with plastics varies, influencing environmental degradation processes.
Qian et al. found that bottled water from various brands contains approximately 2.4 ± 1.3 × 10^5 plastic particles per liter on average.[1] They individually analyzed these particles to identify the chemical diversity among different polymer types. Among the identified polymers, Polyamide 66 (PA), Polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), and Polystyrene (PS) likely contribute significantly to micro-nano plastics exposure through bottled water. Although the specific chemical composition of these micro-nano plastics varies across brands, PA consistently emerged as a predominant component in quantity among the brands studied.
Furthermore, Qian et al. found comparing the exposure of micro-nano plastics from bottled water challenging when using blank samples of reverse osmosis (RO) water from the Milli-Q system, as the Milli-Q water showed the same level of plastic contamination as bottled water. Since plastics are a major component in many parts of the entire water purification system and polyamides serve as the most common material for RO membranes, the presence of nanoplastics in the water disqualifies it from being used as the lab blank for nanoplastic studies.
Overall, RO is an effective approach in control of plastics, however, the age of the membrane and its integrity and the operation conditions might affect the effectiveness of the filtration process according to SCS research and experts.
The widespread detection of microplastics in items consumed daily by humans, including food, beverages, and packaging materials—with bottled water being a significant source—highlights the pervasive nature of microplastic ingestion. Field documentation has shown that microplastics affect a broad spectrum of aquatic organisms across the marine food web, including turtles, seabirds, fish, crustaceans, and worms.[2]
The toxic effects of nanoplastics on organisms depend on their surface properties and size. Positively charged nanoplastics, for instance, disrupt cellular functions more significantly than their negatively charged counterparts, and their small size facilitates easier penetration of cellular membranes, leading to accumulation in tissues and cells.[3]
Cai et al. examined 33 studies on advanced methods for pretreating, separating, identifying, and measuring nanoplastics. While most studies effectively identified nanoplastics added to environmental samples as standards, they struggled to isolate and measure nanoplastics in actual environmental samples. A significant issue is that these studies often quantified nanoplastics without chemically verifying the types of polymers involved, casting doubt on the accuracy of their findings.
The current techniques for detecting and quantifying nanoplastics in the environment are limited, with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) being the predominant method for identifying polymers.[4] Emerging technologies, such as Hyperspectral Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) microscopy, promise to enhance the detection of nanoplastics by providing detailed, label-free chemical imaging through unique Raman signatures.[5] Nonetheless, the effective deployment of these technologies faces challenges, including the need for precise sample preparation and the ability to distinguish plastics from other environmental materials. Achieving accuracy in identifying plastics amongst other substances and distinguishing among various plastic polymers is crucial.
Ongoing advancements in technology and methodology are essential for detecting, quantifying, and monitoring nanoplastics across different settings. Such efforts are vital for gaining a clearer understanding of their distribution and concentration levels.
Understanding the entire lifecycle of nanoplastic pollution—from production to degradation—and the collective measures required to address this widespread issue is imperative. The minute size and substantial surface area of nanoplastics, relative to their volume, contribute to their resistance to natural degradation processes. The inherent chemical stability of polymers, which is beneficial for numerous applications, means that plastics do not readily decompose or chemically interact with other substances in the environment.
The hydrophobic nature of many nanoplastics limits their engagement with waterborne microbes and enzymes that potentially could help break them down. Polymers with high chemical and thermal stability, such as Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), Polypropylene (PP), and Polystyrene (PS), are particularly resistant to environmental degradation processes. This resistance makes nanoplastics especially challenging to degrade, leading to their accumulation and persistence in the environment over time.
One of the most direct ways to combat nanoplastic pollution is to reduce the overall production and use of plastics, especially single-use plastics that are more likely to degrade into micro and nanoplastics. However, the likelihood of substantially reducing plastic production and use depends on various factors, including technological advancements, policy decisions, consumer behavior, and global cooperation.
Developing and using biodegradable or sustainable plastics instead of traditional ones is key. These alternatives are becoming more available and affordable, but more innovation and investment are needed to use them widely.
Better recycling technology that can efficiently turn used plastics into new products could reduce the need for new plastic. However, improving these technologies and making them available everywhere is a challenge.
The issue of nanoplastic pollution is global, with particles found even in remote areas, necessitating international cooperation and solutions.
Ongoing research into nanoplastics, including their interactions with biological systems and their potential roles in diseases such as Parkinson’s,[6] underscores the critical need for developing effective detection, quantification, and mitigation strategies to address the environmental risks they pose.
The extent to which nanoplastics are present in the environment remains uncertain because of the inefficiencies and inaccuracies in current detection methods. These methods’ outlined strengths and weaknesses underscore the unreliability of existing data.
The widespread concern over microplastics and nanoplastics has spurred scientific, policy, and public efforts to better understand their sources, movement, and impacts and find ways to reduce their environmental footprint. Nevertheless, challenges persist in detecting and quantifying nanoplastics, understanding their degradation and contaminant release mechanisms, and tracking their movement through food webs.
Resources:
[1] Qian N, Gao X, Lang X, Deng H, Bratu TM, Chen Q, et al. Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2024;121(3):e2300582121
[2] Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492.
[3] Karapanagioti, H. K., & Klontza, I. (2008). Testing phenanthrene distribution properties of virgin plastic pellets and plastic eroded pellets found on Lesvos Island beaches (Greece). Marine Environmental Research, 65, 283–290.
[4] Vanavermaete, D., Lusher, A., Strand, J. et al. Plastics in biota: technological readiness level of current methodologies. Micropl.&Nanopl. 4, 6 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00083-9
[5] Qian N, Gao X, Lang X, Deng H, Bratu TM, Chen Q, et al. Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2024;121(3):e2300582121.
[6] Anionic nanoplastic contaminants promote Parkinson’s disease-associated α-synuclein aggregation. Liu Z, Sokratian A, Duda AM, Xu E, Stanhope C, Fu A, Strader S, Li H, Yuan Y, Bobay BG, Sipe J, Bai K, Lundgaard I, Liu N, Hernandez B, Bowes Rickman C, Miller SE, West AB. Sci Adv. 2023 Nov 15;9(46):eadi8716. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adi8716. Epub 2023 Nov 17. PMID: 37976362.
SCS Engineers, a leading environmental engineering firm, proudly announces the appointment of its new executive leadership team subsequent to its semiannual Board of Directors meeting, under the guidance of Chairman Jim Walsh and CEO Doug Doerr.
Curtis Jang assumes the role of President, leveraging his extensive 30-year tenure in financial management and organizational improvement. Mr. Jang, will spearhead strategies aligning with the overarching goals set forth by the CEO and Board.
CEO Doug Doerr affirms the significance of this leadership transition, stating, “To ensure our continued success and to position ourselves for future growth, I’ve entrusted several key individuals to assume new executive roles. As one of the country’s foremost environmental engineering firms experiencing remarkable growth, it is imperative that we equip ourselves for the challenges and opportunities ahead.”
In his capacity as President, Mr. Jang will collaborate closely with Doug Doerr and the newly appointed executive leadership team to steer SCS Engineers towards its envisioned future – prioritizing the welfare of its employee-owners, fostering a cohesive ‘One SCS’ ethos, and delivering unparalleled service to our valued clients.
Eddy Smith, assuming the role of Chief Operating Officer, will lead business strategies across various units and practices to foster enhanced collaboration company-wide, thereby enhancing value delivery to clients. With over three decades of experience in environmental and civil engineering design and consulting, Mr. Smith brings a wealth of expertise to his new role.
Chief Financial Officer Steve Liggins, leveraging his financial acumen and a notable career spanning over 17 years, will oversee finance and accounting functions, ensuring fiscal stewardship within the organization.
Stacey Dolden, entrusted with the role of Chief People Officer, will spearhead the company’s intensified focus on enhancing the employee experience. As a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources with 24 years of experience, Ms. Dolden is committed to nurturing a best-in-class workplace, with a particular emphasis on fostering effective career pathways for all employees.
Jay Hatho, SCS’ Chief Information and Chief Technology Officer, will lead the development and implementation of innovative technological solutions within SCS, as well as for our clients. With over 25 years of experience, Mr. Hatho is dedicated to ensuring SCS remains at the forefront of technological advancement, thereby enhancing client service delivery and fostering employee-owner collaboration.
Nathan Hamm, in his capacity as Senior Vice President, will focus on driving strategic initiatives aimed at expanding the company’s service platform and offering creative solutions to clients’ environmental and business challenges. With over 26 years of industry experience, Mr. Hamm brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise across various service sectors within the engineering consulting arena.
The appointment of this new executive leadership team underscores SCS Engineers’ unwavering commitment to excellence, innovation, and client satisfaction. With their collective expertise and vision, SCS Engineers is poised to embark on an exciting new chapter of growth and success.
About SCS Engineers: SCS Engineers is a renowned environmental engineering firm dedicated to providing innovative and sustainable solutions to complex environmental challenges. With a steadfast commitment to excellence and client satisfaction, SCS Engineers has emerged as a trusted industry leader, serving clients across various sectors with integrity, expertise, and unparalleled professionalism.
