Civil/Site

Accelerated Remediation Catalysis (ARC) – An Emerging Water Treatment Technology for the Treatment of a Wide Range of Dissolved Phase Organic and Inorganic Contaminants

Posted on Updated on

The Accelerated Remediation Catalysis (ARC) system is a process that can be applied to reduction or oxidation. For reduction, hydrogen gas and an inexpensive, proprietary catalyst are used to perform a chemical reduction of appropriate contaminants. The application of shear forces that can be achieved by using certain pumps is also a feature that dramatically accelerates reaction times.

On the reduction side, there is data supporting the degradation of 1,4-dioxane (1,4-D), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), chlorinated hydrocarbons, and oxyanions (nitrate and perchlorate). With respect to metals and metalloids such as selenium, these species are precipitated and collected for disposal. ARC is also applicable to oxidative processes for appropriate organics like petroleum hydrocarbons, as well as metals/metalloids that precipitate under high redox conditions. In this application, the oxygen is provided by dilute hydrogen peroxide or peracetic acid with a different catalyst.

To help reduce start-up costs, the ex-situ process uses common tankage, pumps, valves, and process controls that can be obtained from standard vendors. If the process handles low levels of contaminants, it can be constructed of common thermoplastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene, and fiberglass.

ARC can operate in either batch or continuous mode. In batch mode, the reaction tank is filled at start-up and the total reaction time is allowed to reach the predetermined level to assure destruction of the constituents of concern (COCs). After this point has been achieved, the process switches to continuous mode, and the reaction tank functions as a single-stage plug flow reactor. The process can be made to be continuous at start-up by simply filling the reactor tank with clean water. The overall retention time for completion of most reactions has been on the order of 10 to 15 minutes. Using reduction, hydrogen used in the catalyst vessel is generated electrochemically at the site, reducing the need to handle compressed gas. Depending on the COC, the reaction will either cause manageable gas evolution, or precipitate out of the water and be recovered by a variety of methods. The insoluble catalyst can be recovered by filtration and recycled back to the reactor vessel.

Case studies where ARC has been used for chemical reduction include:

  • The conversion of 1,4-dioxane to ethanol. Water with 100 μg/l of 1,4-dioxane was reduced to <1 μg/l.
  • The complete destruction of perfluorocarbons to non-detectable concentrations with a fluorine residue of low concentration, as the initial concentrations of perfluorocarbons are generally low.
  • Chlorinated ethenes are easily reduced to ethene and ethane.
  • Trihalomethanes have been reduced from a typical 80 μg/l level to <10 μg/l in 10-15 minutes.
  • Perchlorate levels as high as 100 mg/l are reduced to chloride.
  • Nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas.
  • Selenium in the form of selenate can be reduced to selenite and removed as a precipitate. Selenate was reduced from 200 mg/l to <1 mg/l.
  • Chlorobenzene at ppm levels is reduced to benzene that is then collected on the low-cost catalyst.

The ARC system can be designed for a wide range of process flow rates. Design of the system is only limited by the required retention time for the reaction. In essence, the system was brought into focus because of the emerging contaminants issue, and it is applied to pump-and-treat systems. This is important because the nature of 1,4-dioxane and PFCs makes in-situ treatment challenging. It is expected that there will be both an increase in the use of pump-and-treat systems and a need for more efficient water treatment technologies, especially since conventional methods of treatment (such as those that use carbon) are limited.

Additionally, because of the low concentrations of reactants in the process, there is typically no detectable heat gain in the reaction vessel. Therefore, cooling of the process is generally not required prior to releasing the treated effluent. Then there are other applications in traditional wastewater treatment, such as removal of selenium from scrub water at coal-fired power plants. The ARC system’s inherent simplicity allows it to be easily scaled so that dealing with the large flow rates encountered in industrial settings is feasible. While the endpoint for ARC treated water is generally to be discharged, a supplementary feature called Advanced Regenerative Process (ARP) can be added as a further polishing step so that beneficial reuse, including human consumption, is an option.

ARC targets those applications where more complicated and expensive systems, such as conventional Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOP), are being used. The chemical usage, energy, and safety features of AOP systems, combined with their operational footprint, suggest they will eventually be replaced by better remedial options like ARC. There are other developing technologies that have similar objectives to displace AOP systems, such as resin-based operations, but ARC presents distinct advantages in cost, efficacy, physical layout, and scalability.

For additional information, please contact Chris Hortert at (800) 365-2324 (chortert@cecinc.com); Steve Koenigsberg at (949) 262-3265 (skoenigsberg@cecinc.com); or Thom Zugates at (602) 644-2163 (tzugates@cecinc.com).

REVISION TO MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS

Posted on Updated on

American Land Title Association® (ALTA®) and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) have released the 2016 revision of the Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, effective date February 23, 2016. (The NSPS is the legal successor organization to the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM).) This new version has replaced the 2011 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys.

The official redline edits to the 2011 standards are available for viewing. The redline edits formed the 2016 revision. To help you interpret the redline edits, CEC provides a marginal notation within this PDF for your convenience.

It is anticipated that the 2016 revised standards will resolve past questions and communication issues that have occurred between surveyors, title companies, clients, and lenders. As with all previous versions, the standards of the state in which the property is located may require additional items. To view the 2016 revised standards in their finalized version, click here.

Changes to Table A, Optional Survey Responsibilities and Specifications

The 2016 version will revise and clarify a number of items in Table A, Optional Survey Responsibilities and Specifications. These are the aspects that directly affect the processes of the survey companies you might engage to perform the work. Highlights of the revisions include:

  • A zoning report (Item 6) must be provided by the client before the surveyor can list or identify setback requirements, height and floor space restrictions, and parking requirements. As long as the zoning restrictions do not require interpretation by the surveyor, the surveyor will graphically show building setback requirements.
  • Parking striping (Item 9) has been clarified to specifically identify disabled spaces.
  • The 2011 standards gave two options for the location of utilities: by observed evidence (11a) and by observed evidence together with evidence of provided plans and markings combined to develop a view of the underground utilities (11b). For the 2016 standards, option 11a has been eliminated, and 11b is now identified as Item 11. Therefore, if selected, this option will require underground utilities to be depicted on the survey. It is further clarified that underground utilities shown on the survey must be considered approximate and may be incomplete as a result of the lack of response from the One Call Notification and should be noted accordingly. Since the depiction of underground utilities is now required under this option, the opening of manhole structures may be necessary to confirm underground connections in some cases.
  • The use of property (formerly Item 18) as a solid waste dump, sump, or sanitary landfill has been removed.
  • The location of wetlands (formerly Item 19, now Item 18) has been clarified to “a field delineation of wetlands conducted by a qualified specialist hired by the client.”
  • Setting survey monuments for off-site easements (formerly Item 20b) that may benefit the surveyed property has been eliminated.

A copy of the new 2016 Table A, Optional Survey Responsibilities and Specifications is provided here.

If you have any questions or would like further interpretation on any of the 2016 revisions to the ALTA survey requirements, please contact the authors, Jim Bruggeman (jbruggeman@cecinc.com) can be reached at (800) 365-2324, or Jeff Miller, Survey practice lead, at jmiller@cecinc.com; (888) 598-6808 ext. 3339.

Ohio Well Site Construction Rule Takes Effect

Posted on Updated on

Introduction/Summary

Sweeping changes are in store for the Exploration and Production Industry in Ohio with the adoption of the Ohio Horizontal Well Site Construction Rule (Rule).  The Rule, which took effect on July 16, 2015, requires that operators obtain a permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to construct a well pad for horizontal drilling in the State of Ohio.  While similar requirements have been in place in neighboring Appalachian Basin states for several years, this is a first for Ohio.  All sites constructed or modified after the effective date of the Rule will be subject to its requirements.  Sites already under construction prior to July 16, 2015, do not require permit coverage.

What are the requirements?

The Rule serves to regulate well site construction activities from project planning through construction and site stabilization.  Requirements are specified for the permit application, supporting documents, review procedures, construction activities, permit modifications, certification, and permit transfer.

The application process will involve the completion of forms developed by ODNR and the preparation of a variety of plans and reports to characterize the well site, describe the proposed construction activity, and demonstrate the considerations made for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public and the environment.  Required attachments to the application package include:

  • Detailed Site Development Drawings
  • Emergency Release Conveyance Map
  • Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
  • Well Site Boundary GIS Files
  • Dust Control Plan
  • Geotechnical Plan
  • Stormwater Hydraulic Report

Application review under the Rule consists of a completeness screening, an on-site field review, and a detailed review of the permit documents.  The Rule outlines timeframes for each stage of review and the procedure for addressing deficiencies identified by ODNR.  Following permit issuance, construction may begin following 48-hour advance notice to ODNR.  Red-line drawings must be kept on site to document deviations from the approved plans, and inspection and maintenance activities must be performed to demonstrate compliance.

The Rule also includes procedures for addressing permit modifications, general requirements during construction activities, requirements for certification of the constructed site, and provisions for ownership transfers.

What it means to industry

In short, the enactment of the Rule means that it will take longer and cost more to build a well pad in Ohio than it had previously.

Operators will need to account for time in their schedules to develop additional plans, conduct more extensive field investigations, and navigate the permit application, review, and certification processes.  Additional costs will be incurred for plan preparation and for management of the process.

Some of our key observations:

  • The requirement for a geotechnical investigation exceeds the requirements of similar permitting processes in neighboring Appalachian Basin states. In some cases, the specification of safety factors for slope stability and bearing capacity could restrict options based on professional judgment. The safety factor specification could result in more earthwork, more disturbed area, and additional materials and structures being needed.
  • The review process will not only add time, but also complexity to well site construction projects. Overall, the process could span from as little as 12 weeks to as many as 29 weeks. Thorough, well-organized applications and timely response to inquiries from ODNR during the review process will be essential to minimizing approval timeframes. This can only happen if the numerous disciplines involved with site planning and permit preparation are effectively coordinated.
  • Construction oversight and inspection will be important activities during construction to ensure projects are built in accordance with the approved permit materials and that modifications, if necessary, are well documented. The certification requirements included in the Rule will make this necessary to minimize the risk of encountering unexpected delays just before mobilization of drilling equipment.

Conclusion

The implementation of any new regulation results in evolving processes as grey areas and uncertainties are identified and subsequently resolved.  The Ohio Horizontal Well Site Construction Rule will be no different in this respect.  It will be important for the industry and ODNR to work together to develop an efficient process, one that will support the construction of well pads that enable safe drilling and production while protecting public health, safety, and the environment.

If you have questions about how this new regulation may affect your business, please contact Dustin Kuhlman in CEC’s headquarters office at dkuhlman@cecinc.com or by calling (412) 249-1617 or Ababu Gelaye in CEC’s Columbus office at agelaye@cecinc.com or (614) 310-2079.

Proposed Waters of U.S. Rule and Implications for Site Planning and Stormwater Management

Posted on Updated on

On April 3, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) submitted a proposed rulemaking for final interagency review to revise the definition of “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) in the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The revisions will affect the circumstances in which permits are needed to disturb and discharge fill material into streams, wetlands, or other waters. The EPA and the Corps jointly released the proposed rule in April 2014 and have since received almost one million public comments. The proposed WOTUS rule expands the types of waters that will be considered jurisdictional and subject to CWA permitting requirements through the use of various opinions from past Supreme Court decisions regarding the connections of drainageways and wetlands to downstream waters, as well as by proposing new WOTUS categories and definitions.

The proposed rule will allow the EPA and the Corps to assert CWA jurisdiction on a categorical and regional basis in cases where jurisdiction is currently questionable (e.g., ephemeral or discontinuous streams, isolated wetlands, and ditches), instead of requiring a case-by-case Significant Nexus Determination (SND) process. This SND process is a result of the 2006 Rapanos v. U.S. Supreme Court (Rapanos) case, which enables EPA and Corps staff to use the SND logic (or just the threat of a formal Jurisdictional Determination) to lay a de facto claim to any tributary streams or adjacent wetlands, including the uppermost extent of dry ephemeral channels and wetlands near, but lacking direct connections to, WOTUS. In most cases, when jurisdiction is in question for a project, applicants relent to the EPA and Corps opinions before the case is subjected to a SND, because the SND process can be time-consuming, cumbersome, and expensive. Therefore in practice, the new rule may have less impact on streams than on ditches, artificial drainageways, and isolated wetlands.

EPA claims that the rule would improve clarity and certainty regarding CWA jurisdiction, and stated in press releases that “confusion has led some people not to apply for permits where in fact they must” and that the rule would extend CWA jurisdiction to an additional 20 million acres of wetlands and more than half of our nation’s streams. However, the inclusion of drainageways and “other waters” into the rule on the basis of any hydrological or ecological connections, not just “significant” connections, would depart drastically from the Rapanos plurality decision that only channels with “relatively permanent” flow should be jurisdictional under the CWA.

The Ditch Issue and CWA Exemptions

Once a ditch or other area is under federal CWA jurisdiction, modifications or disturbance (including routine maintenance) may be subject to CWA Section 404 permitting requirements.  Unless the rule is revised and clarified, even constructed drainageways, swales, and similar surface flow conveyances would be considered jurisdictional unless it can be demonstrated that they are not connected to a WOTUS, and that they do not meet the definition of wetlands.  This is problematic considering that in many non-arid regions, the recently revised methodology for wetland determination makes it relatively easy to classify even very small, seasonally saturated areas with opportunistic hydrophytic vegetation as wetlands.

The rule appears to lay the burden-of-proof on the applicant to prove a feature is not jurisdictional.  Ditches are exempt from regulation under the rule and past Corps regulatory guidance letters if they: 1) are excavated in uplands, drain only uplands, and have less than perennial flow; and 2) do not contribute to flow, either directly or indirectly, to a WOTUS.  Since most ditches are constructed to collect and transport runoff to a discharge point at a stream or wetland, only ditches that are wholly disconnected from a watershed  and remain dry during most of the year are likely to qualify for these exemptions.

The original CWA also provided conditional exemptions for other activities, detailed at the links below, which are preserved with the new rule.  However, use of these exemptions can be contentious in practice and subject to case-by-case evaluation that differs based on the regulatory climate within each Corps District and EPA Region. For more information, see:

For example, many Corps reviewers have been apt to reject an exemption for “maintenance of drainage ditches” if vegetation and sediment had accumulated in a constructed channel or basin, on the rationale that this infrastructure was abandoned because of lack of routine maintenance, or if the ditch is in the vicinity of protected wildlife species habitat.  The Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter 07-02 discusses ditch maintenance exemption in more detail.

Stormwater and Green Infrastructure Jurisdictional Claims

Stormwater treatment systems and other constructed water treatment systems were traditionally not claimed by the Corps because these systems are designed and maintained to satisfy Section 402 of the CWA (regarding point and non-point discharges and NDPES permitting), thus considered impractical to be regulated as jurisdiction WOTUS under Section 404.

Recently, however, some Corps Districts have already begun claiming stormwater channels and basins on the basis that they are either not regularly maintained or convey flow to/from a wetland or stream, and are thus de facto jurisdictional tributaries.  This is a slippery slope; if the mere connection to a stream or wetland is sufficient to claim jurisdiction, rather than considerations of function and form, then most stormwater facilities could be subject to CWA Section 404 permitting requirements.

Additionally, green infrastructure (bioretention basins, rain gardens, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, etc.) have been widely promoted by EPA and others as an effective solution for stormwater control, water quality, and other issues.  Despite appeals by many stakeholders, the EPA and the Corps have declined so far to provide an explicit exemption for green infrastructure—which may have a chilling effect on its use.

What You Can Do to Reduce Exposure to the CWA Proposed Rule

Maintain your drainage ditches…or else!  Maintain artificial drainageways by removing accumulated sediment and colonizing vegetation, and controlling fugitive runoff or seepage to prevent the area from meeting the definition of wetlands.

Retain documentation (e.g. design plans, permits, and maintenance records) for water conveyance systems, especially green infrastructure.  This documentation may be proof to refute jurisdictional claims in the future and prove that features were excavated in, and drain only, uplands.

Where possible, design drainage controls so that they are “off-line” from the local watershed, and avoid controls that channelize or detain surface flows (e.g., curb/gutter elimination, infiltration, bioretention), to reduce exposure to CWA jurisdictional claims.

Remember, even though you design a system or have a permit, the EPA and the Corps may reevaluate in the future and determine that conditions have changed and your infrastructure is now subject to regulation.

If you have questions on if/how the new WOTUS rule may affect your facility, contact Jonathan Farrell at 412-977-1456 or jfarrell@cecinc.com.   If you require assistance inspecting and maintaining your stormwater system, contact Rick Celender at (412) 249-2309 or rcelender@cecinc.com.  The EPA has established a website dedicated to public outreach at http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule.  We recommend more reading at http://www.naco.org/legislation/Pages/WOUS.aspx.

New CCR Rules Require Engineering Evaluations of Existing CCR Surface Impoundments

Posted on

Recently, the USEPA provided a prepublication copy of standards for the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundment.  Section 257 of the federal code will be modified to include new measures covering the location, design, operation, and closure of existing and proposed CCR disposal units.

Owners of existing CCR surface impoundments will be required to provide assessments of the “structural integrity” of their facilities shortly after publication of the final rules.  Owners must obtain a certification from a qualified professional engineer stating that each of these assessments meets the requirements of the stipulated CCR regulations.

Within 18 months of publication, owners or operators of a CCR impoundment must provide the following initial engineering assessments:

Hazard Classification (§257.73(a)2) – The owner is required to document the hazard potential of the impoundment based on the potential loss of human life, economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or other impacts resulting from failure or mis-operation.   The hazard classification uses a scale of low, high, or significant, and directly impacts spillway capacity, emergency action planning, and response requirements.

History of Construction (§257.73(c)) – The owner must compile documentation of the physical condition of the impoundment, including information on foundation and abutment soils, embankment and staging information, detailed drawings of the impoundment (including drainage and outlet structures), and normal and peak pool operating elevations.

Structural Stability Assessment (§257.73(d)) – The owner must document the adequacy of the impoundment design, construction, operation, and maintenance.  The assessment must document the condition of the impoundment foundation and abutments, slope protection, vegetation, spillway condition and capacity, and associated hydraulic structures.

Safety Factor Assessment (§257.73(e)) – The owner must document the calculated factors of safety for critical cross sections of the impoundment embankments.  The safety factor assessment must include stability calculations for operating and loading conditions (such as seismic loading) typical for dam design and construction.

These engineering assessments must be updated every five years following the initial assessment.

Within 24 months, a written Emergency Action Plan (§257.73(a) 3) must be prepared for any CCR surface impoundment classified with high or significant hazard potential.  The EAP must contain information on procedures to detect a safety emergency, define responsible persons and notification procedures, provide contact information, include a map delineating the downstream area potentially impacted by a failure, and provide for meetings between the owner and local emergency responders. The written EAP must be reevaluated, at a minimum, every five years.

Longer term (42 months after publication), owners must demonstrate that existing surface impoundments comply with location restrictions for fault areas (§257.62) and seismic impact zones (§257.63).  Facilities located within these areas will require site-specific evaluations of the performance of the facilities under seismic (earthquake) events.  These evaluations must demonstrate that all structural components (including liners, leachate collection systems, and surface water control systems) are designed to function under the impacts of maximum horizontal ground motion.  This task will include performing liquefaction, slope stability, and deformation analyses of waste, foundation, and embankment soils.

Any existing impoundment not demonstrating compliance with these requirements must cease placement of CCR and non-CCR waste streams into the unit within 6 months and commence closure operations in accordance with §257.102.

If you have questions about the proposed changes to the federal rules governing CCR disposal and the engineering assessments discussed, please contact Doug Clark (dclark@cecinc.com; 800-365-2324) or Steve Dixon (sdixon@cecinc.com; 800-365-2324). More information on the proposed rule changes is available at EPA’s website.

Upcoming Modifications to the Phase I ESA Process

Posted on Updated on

A recent EPA ruling (78 FR 19764) indicates that 40 CFR Part 312 (All Appropriate Inquiries [AAI]) will be amended to reference ASTM International’s E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:  Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Process.  The AAI amendment is tentatively set to take effect on November 13, 2013.

Although not published by ASTM yet, the proposed 2013 revisions to ASTM E1527 are expected to be as follows:

Terminology

The definition of a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) will be streamlined.  The pending revision of the term states a REC means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property:  (1) due to any release to the environment, (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

In addition, the “Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC)” will be clarified to specifically apply to sites where a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted residential use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls such as property use restrictions, activity and use limitations (AULs), or  engineering or institutional controls.

A new term you will be seeing in Phase I ESAs is “Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC).”  A CREC is a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.  The required controls (i.e., property use restrictions, AULs, engineering or institutional controls, etc.) likely pose ongoing and/or future obligations for the property owner.  This terminology will be especially important to Users who intend to redevelop a property because contamination remains in place.

The Vapor Pathway

ASTM E1527-13 will also clarify that the definition of “migration” includes contamination in the vapor phase.  Although a tool for assessing vapor migration risk, ASTM E1527-13 does not require that an ASTM E2600 Vapor Encroachment Screening be performed in conjunction with a Phase I ESA.

File Reviews

The 2013 revision of ASTM E1527 will also include language regarding regulatory file reviews for the subject property and adjoining properties.  Although the Environmental Professional (EP) is not required to conduct such file reviews, ASTM E1527-13 will state that pertinent regulatory files and/or records associated with the subject property or any adjoining properties identified in the government database search should be reviewed.  Therefore, the EP must cite rationale why such file reviews are not necessary if not performed in conjunction with the Phase I ESA.  Agency file reviews can be an inconvenience when it comes to the cost and timing to obtain the files.  Acceptable alternatives will include review of onsite records, User-provided records, local government records, and/or interviews with regulatory officials or individuals knowledgeable about the environmental condition that resulted in the database listing.

Although the environmental lien/AUL search will still be identified as the responsibility of the User in ASTM E1527-13, wording related to the search for environmental liens and AULs that are filed or recorded against the subject property will be revised to include the need to search judicial records in jurisdictions where environmental liens and AULs are only recorded or filed in judicial records.

Summary

Once ASTM E1527-13 is published, you can expect to see the use of some new and revised terminology, a new emphasis on vapor migration, and the EP’s judgment regarding the applicability of file reviews to specific projects.

If you have any questions about E 1527-13 and how it may impact an upcoming project or Phase I ESAs in general, please contact Jennifer A. Ewing, P.G., (jewing@cecinc.com) at 800-365-2324.

Pennsylvania Clean Fill Policy

Posted on Updated on

In 2004, PADEP established the Management of Fill Policy to provide procedures for determining whether material is clean fill or regulated fill.  This Policy is pertinent to those developing “greenfield” sites requiring fill, and brownfield sites where fill is being imported or exported from the site.  “Regulated fill” may not be used unless a Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) permit is secured by the entity or individual using the regulated fill. 

 How Do I determine if the material in question is Clean Fill?

The Policy provides that environmental due diligence must be performed on the fill materials.  If the due diligence shows no evidence of a release of a regulated substance, the material may be handled as clean fill. If due diligence shows evidence of a release, the material must be tested to determine if it qualifies as clean fill.  The Policy provides the procedures for sampling of material based on either composite or discrete sampling, with the number of samples required based on the volume of material.  If testing reveals that the fill material contains concentrations of regulated substances that are below the residential limits in Table FP-1a and b of the Management of Fill Policy, the material can be managed as clean fill.

 What is Clean Fill?

Uncontaminated, non water-soluble, nondecomposable inert solid material. The term includes soil, rock, stone, dredged material, used asphalt (except milled asphalt), and brick, block or concrete from construction and demolition activities that is separate from other waste and recognizable as such. The term does not include materials placed in or on the waters of the Commonwealth unless otherwise authorized.

  How do I manage Clean Fill?

Clean fill may be used in an unrestricted manner under the SWMA.  The person using materials as clean fill is still subject to other requirements such as Erosion and Sediment Control (PA Title 25 Chapter 102) and Dam Safety and Water Management (PA Title 25 Chapter 105).  Any person placing clean fill which has been affected by a release of a regulated substance must certify the origin of the fill material and the results of analytical testing on Form FP-001.

 What is Regulated Fill?

Soil, rock, stone, dredged material, used asphalt, historic fill, and brick, block or concrete from construction and demolition activities that is separate from other waste and recognizable as such that has been affected by a spill or release of a regulated substance and the concentrations of regulated substances exceed the values in Tables FP-1a and b of the Policy.

 How do I manage Regulated Fill?

Materials identified as regulated fill are a waste and must be managed in accordance with residual waste regulations.  Regulated fill may be used beneficially under General Permit WMGR096 if the material and the proposed activities for the fill meet the conditions of that permit.

Regulated fill may not be placed on greenfield property that is not planned for development, or on a property currently in residential use or planned for residential use unless otherwise authorized by PADEP.  Fill containing concentrations of regulated substances that exceed the levels in Tables GP-1a and b of the General Permit may not be managed under the Management of Fill Policy or the General Permit, but must be managed instead in accordance with the applicable municipal or residual waste regulations.

A general permit is not required for activities undertaken entirely on an Act 2 site, or if regulated fill is taken from one Act 2 site to another Act 2 site, as long as the procedural requirements of Act 2 are met (including documentation in the Act 2 reports for both sites).  Placement of the regulated fill may not cause the receiving site to exceed the Act 2 standards selected for that site.

If you have questions about management of fill issues in Pennsylvania, please contact Mary King (mking@cecinc.com) with the Pittsburgh office at 800-365-2324.

Useful Pennsylvania Management of Fill Links: