Source Brightline West | Brightline West high-speed rail connecting Las Vegas and Southern California.

Source EPA | The Allied Textile Printing site

Source Multi-Housing News | The opening of Stone Mill Lofts in Massachusetts.

A new era is dawning on the transportation sector as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a groundbreaking regulation targeting carbon emissions from large trucks.

Traditionally seen in tram and train systems, overhead cable (or catenary) systems are now being introduced on roadways as electrified highways.

Initiatives like Germany’s eHighway and trials near Los Angeles are testing the feasibility of these cables in powering electric trucks over long distances, offering continuous charging in designated lanes. In Sweden and Utah, inductive charging technologies are being integrated into roads, paving the way for heavy-duty electric trucks to charge while in motion.

While the vision is compelling, ongoing trials are grappling with technical challenges such as infrastructure durability and energy capacity to meet the demands of heavy freight transport.

China’s approach of replacing drained batteries with fully charged ones aims to alleviate range anxiety, providing almost instant power renewal. However, concerns regarding standardization, cost efficiency, and potential limitations on battery size and weight raise doubts about its long-term feasibility.

While the path to electrification presents various challenges, experts unanimously stress the urgent need for the freight industry to transition towards more sustainable practices.

The EPA has reached a turning point in its effort to transition key industries away from asbestos. Here’s what’s known about the final rule, which could go into effect as early as April.

The United States recently announced a ban on the only type of raw asbestos fiber imported into the country. This ban is not a standalone measure but part of a that will see a phased approach to eliminating all forms of asbestos and products that contain it.

The phased approach will provide certain manufacturers with a transition period of up to 12 years to phase out the use of asbestos in their products; therefore, the consumer will not see immediate effects.

With the US seeing a sharp reduction in domestic asbestos consumption over the years, the current reliance on imports of this harmful mineral has raised significant concerns among public health advocates.

The decline in asbestos consumption is part of a broader trend that reflects a growing awareness of the health dangers associated with this mineral. The last US asbestos producer ceased operations in 2002, and since then, the nation has exclusively depended on imported asbestos, mainly in the chlor-alkali industry, which accounts for 100% of .

Ban Implications

The immediate effect of the ban will be felt in the asbestos import sector, as the sole remaining type of asbestos fiber, chrysotile, becomes illegal to bring into the country.

Companies that use asbestos in manufacturing have been given a transition period to phase out their use, ranging from two to 12 years depending on the specific application and their facilities. This phased approach allows for an adjustment period, enabling companies to find alternative processes and materials.

However, it’s not without controversy. Many health advocates and professionals argue that this transition period is too generous, potentially prolonging the risks of asbestos exposure in the meantime.

The rule also carves out exemptions, permitting the import of other asbestos types under certain conditions. While this may be necessary to allow for certain critical uses, such as in handcrafted products, it also raises questions about how effectively these uses can be controlled and the potential for misuse.

Historical Context

Asbestos, highly valued for its , was used in a wide array of products during the 20th century. However, evidence linking asbestos exposure to serious respiratory diseases and cancer emerged in the early 1900s, leading to the mineral’s eventual decline in usage.

The history of asbestos in America is also marked by various regulatory attempts to manage its risks. Efforts date back to 1989, when the EPA first attempted to ban most asbestos-containing products.

These initial regulatory actions sparked controversies and legal battles, but they were also instrumental in diminishing asbestos’s presence in American manufacturing and construction. In recent years, legislative initiatives have gained traction, building upon the foundation laid by earlier regulations.

The 2024 asbestos ban not only fulfills long-standing calls for tighter restrictions on asbestos but also represents the country’s first legal limitation on the mineral since the recent overhaul of the in 2016.

Effects on Industry and Advocacy

The ban’s impact on various industries is likely to be significant, particularly for those sectors that have historically relied on asbestos.

Companies in the chlor-alkali industry, for example, which have extensive historical use of asbestos in their manufacturing processes, will face substantial challenges in transitioning away from this material.

The industry’s lobbying efforts reflect deep-seated concerns about the availability and cost of substitute materials, which could have ripple effects on products in the marketplace that are essential to ongoing climate, sustainability, and infrastructure projects.

Still, there are other methods to disinfect water and other ways to produce chlorine; in fact, two-thirds of the chlorine produced in the U.S. is produced without asbestos.

On the advocacy front, the announcement of the ban has been met with a mix of relief and caution. Health advocates prioritize the immediate cessation of all asbestos imports and uses, fearing that the extended phaseout could pose continued risks to workers and the public.

They also argue that the ban’s safety measures are lacking, underscoring the need for enhanced protective regulations and public health awareness.

Asbestos in Buildings

Asbestos was widely used in building materials such as pipe insulation, flooring, wall system components, glues, fireproofing, and many other items until the 1970s.

The new ban does not affect how these existing materials are managed and handled, which has been regulated by the EPA for decades.

Building owners are still required to conduct building inspections to identify and maintain asbestos-containing materials and have them professionally abated prior to building renovations and demolition.

Asbestos Services and Deep Expertise

In response to the new asbestos regulations, companies and government agencies turn to experts in asbestos abatement and safety compliance.

�鶹TV��վ, a leader in environmental consulting, offers vital support to businesses navigating the complexities of asbestos management. Services such as asbestos surveys, air monitoring, operation & maintenance plans, and worker training become essential as industries strive to meet the ban’s requirements.

With the ban poised to reshape industry practices and protect public health, the road ahead is not without its challenges. A cooperative effort between government, industry, and advocacy groups will be essential to realizing a future free from asbestos-related risks.

By upholding the spirit of the asbestos ban, we can ensure that the health and well-being of workers and the public remain at the forefront of our national policies and practices.

On May 25, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in the Sackett v. EPA case, a 14-year-long lawsuit over property rights and the legality of building on federally protected wetlands. All nine Justices agreed that the wetlands on the Sackett’s property should not fall under the jurisdiction of (CWA), permitting the Idaho couple to continue with construction of their new residence.

But there were substantial differences in the approach to the scope of the decision.

Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the five justice majority, which included Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Thomas (note that Justices Thomas and Gorsuch prepared a separate concurring opinion).

Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring with the judgement in favor of the Sacketts, but offered a more inclusive approach to the question of what wetlands should fall under federal jurisdiction. Justice Kagan was joined by Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh.

Background

The Sackett’s legal battle began in 2007, when they started earthmoving activities to prepare a 0.63-acre lot they owned near Priest Lake, Oregon.

The family received a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop work to avoid impacts to wetlands on the property. The EPA based their jurisdictional decision on their conclusion that the wetlands on the Sackett’s lot drained into a non-navigable creek that then led to Priest Lake.

The Sacketts challenged EPA’s decision, and the various cases worked their way through the federal courts, ending with the 9th Circuit issuing an opinion that there existed a “significant nexus” between the wetland on the Sackett’s property and Priest Lake. On May 25, the Supreme Court overturned that decision and essentially voided the “significant nexus test.”

Summary of the Decision

Justice Alito ruled that courts should apply a more stringent test, outlined by four justices (Alito, Chief Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) in a previous case (Rapanos v. United States). Alito relied heavily on Justice Scalia’s opinion, in which he wrote that the Clean Water Act (CWA) applies to a particular wetland only if it blends or flows into a neighboring water that is a channel used in interstate commerce — generally referred to as a Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW).

The majority wrote that the text of the CWA defined “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) as “geographical features” ordinarily described as “streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” The statute also clearly states that WOTUS includes wetlands that are “adjacent” to another WOTUS.

For decades, this meant that wetlands could fall under Section 404 even though they were separated from a TNW, provided there was some direct connection to that TNW. Thus, a wetland that was connected by even an ephemeral stream, through the greater stream network, eventually emptying into a TNW, fell under federal regulation.

Justice Alito, in adopting Scalia’s strict definition of adjacency from the Rapanos decision, wrote that wetlands can only fall under federal regulation if they possess a direct, relatively permanent connection to another WOTUS. Still, Alito seemed to indicate that to be adjacent, a wetland must be “indistinguishably” part of a stream, ocean, river, or lake.

Potential Effects

The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the EPA are expected to revise the WOTUS Rule once again. The rule recently enacted by the Biden Administration does not incorporate Justice Alito’s new, much narrower definition. The previous definition of WOTUS, one that has been in practice since 1986, also will not meet the new test in Alito’s decision.

It is clear so far that a wetland that is congruent with a stream or other regulated body of water will still fall under federal jurisdiction. It seems clear that a wetland that is adjacent to relatively permanent streams (intermittent or perennial streams) will also still be regulated, but that ephemeral streams would likely not be (ephemeral streams are not jurisdictional under the 1986 guidance). Furthermore, a wetland that is connected by a relatively permanent stream to a TNW should still be regulated.

The decision will most likely expand the definition of “isolated wetlands,” by removing from jurisdiction those wetlands that previously exhibited a “significant nexus” to another WOTUS. The attached diagram shows �鶹TV��վ’ interpretation of the decision based on information we have to date.

Note that state wetland regulations still apply until changed by the individual state administrations or legislatures.

The index below lists the WOTUS definition that is currently applicable in each state. This will likely change as the Corps and EPA establish new rules and guidance following the Sackett Decision.

Yellowstone National Park is one of the most iconic and beloved natural areas in the world.

Spanning over 2.2 million acres, the park boasts an astonishing variety of geothermal features, wildlife, and landscapes, including Old Faithful, the Yellowstone River Canyon, and Lamar Valley.

Established on March 1, 1872, by President Ulysses S. Grant, Yellowstone was a landmark achievement in the history of conservation and public lands.

A Fresh Perspective

The idea of setting aside a large area of land for public enjoyment originated in the mid-19^th century, when several visionary leaders, including artist George Catlin and writer Henry David Thoreau, argued for the preservation of natural beauty and wilderness.

However, it wasn’t until the 1870s that the concept won support, thanks to the efforts of several key figures like geologist Ferdinand Hayden, railroad executive Nathaniel Langford, and journalist Thomas Moran.

Hayden’s surveys of the Yellowstone region in 1871 and 1872, which documented the unique geology, flora, and fauna of the area, convinced Congress to pass the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act in 1872, which designated Yellowstone as a public park and placed it under federal management.

This was a radical departure from the prevailing attitude of the time, which saw natural resources as commodities to be exploited for profit.

Setting the Precedent

The proposal would establish maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS, and a hazard index approach for four other PFAS compounds.

On March 14, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a federal action to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, the first in over a decade. If approved, these new National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) will add six contaminants to the list of over 90 existing chemical compounds that are federally regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

PFAS compounds were once widely used as water repellants, non-stick surface treatments, and firefighting foams. This EPA ruling would regulate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which according to Science Reporter, Bella Isaacs-Thomas, are “two well-studied legacy chemicals that have largely been phased out of use in the United States but linger in the environment and are still used in manufacturing abroad.”

These regulations aim to cap PFOA and PFOS contamination at four parts per trillion (ppt), the lowest level at which they can be reliably measured. It’s worth noting that meeting this standard wasn’t possible in 2016, when the health advisory level was 70 ppt. However, as laboratory technology continues to evolve, water practitioners can detect, measure, and remove contaminants from drinking water better than ever.

The other four PFAS — perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (GenX Chemicals) — would be regulated as a mixture, by testing for each one individually and assessing their risk in combination with one another.

Federal estimates place the number of public drinking water systems requiring treatment upgrades to meet new PFAS maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) between 3,300 and 6,600. That’s nearly 5-10% of the estimated 66,000 public drinking water systems that will need to treat their water to remove PFAS compounds to comply with new SDWA regulations for the six PFAS chemicals.

The EPA anticipates plans to be finalized by the end of 2023, but agencies will have additional time to adjust to these stringent changes. Officials will go through the usual proposal approval process, opening a public comment window after regulations are published to the Federal Register. Regulations won’t take full effect until year three.

As for public water systems in communities with limited resources, the EPA’s increasing involvement in PFAS regulation begs the question, how will they manage compliance costs?

Federal aid funding programs will help small and disadvantage communities redress contaminated drinking water. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $9 billion towards underserved regions impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants. The EPA will direct that money toward water utilities and communities that are on the front lines and are resource-constrained the most.

And as the current administration advocates for EPA’s new budget this year, more resources will be required to combat this pervasive issue.

Local agencies can also access an approximate $12 billion in Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRF), dedicated to making drinking water safer, and billions more that the federal government has annually provided to fund DWSRF loans — all of which can help communities make important investments in solutions to remove PFAS from drinking water.

Treating the Cause, Not the Effect

The best available technologies to treat for PFAS are Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), Anion Exchange (AIX), Reverse Osmosis (RO), and Nano-filtration (NF). While all of these technologies have shown to be effective in achieving 99% removal and to specifically meet the four ppt proposed MCLs, they are removal technologies that result in contaminant transfer from one media to another rather than complete destruction.

This can be problematic as the EPA has also proposed regulating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, which may ultimately affect the disposal costs associated with treatment residuals (i.e., spent carbon media, and concentrated waste streams). EPA estimates that disposing of spent treatment media would cost an additional 3-6%.

The EPA provided a cost-benefit evaluation, comparing the cost of treating the health effects associated with PFAS consumption in drinking water versus the treatment costs, and found that the costs were roughly the same, approximately $1 billion annually. Note that the treatment cost does not consider potential treatment residuals disposal cost increases associated with a change from non-hazardous to hazardous waste.

Although the cost of treating the PFAS in drinking water before it causes health effects is roughly comparable to the costs of treating the health effects themselves, EPA’s proposed regulation is effectively seeking to treat the cause rather than the effect to improve the overall health of the U.S. population served by public water systems.

Key Takeaways

1. The proposal sets numerical standards of four ppt for PFOA and PFOS, a hazard index of one for four GenX Chemicals, and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for all six PFAS.

*above table from

2. The new PFAS regulations will require additional testing at about 66,000 public water systems, and 5-10% of these systems are expected to require additional treatment to remove PFAS.

3. The Hazard Index considers the different toxicities of GenX Chemicals, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS. Water systems would use a hazard index calculation to determine if the combined levels of these PFAS in the drinking water at that system pose a potential risk.

*above table from

4. The MCLs were set at the levels that can “reliably be measured,” but the MCLG is zero, leaving potential for them to get even lower as analytical precision improves.

Authors:

Dawn E. Bockoras | National Director – Environmental Investigation & Remediation | ATLAS

Rik Lantz, P.G., LEED-AP | Senior Consultant, Federal Programs | ATLAS

Among the many hurdles to brownfields assessment, remediation, and redevelopment, funding is often the most significant. But thanks to a new federal law, the funding outlook for brownfields projects in the United States has never been better.

Enacted last November, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $1.5 billion over five years in federal funding for the Brownfields Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This funding represents an approximately six-fold increase over typical annual spending levels for the program. Of the $1.5 billion, $600 million is allocated to assessment grants, which recipients may use to determine the extent of contamination and plan revitalization at brownfield sites. Another $160 million is for cleanup grants, and $150 million for multipurpose grants, which may be used for planning, assessing, and cleaning up sites.

In some cases, cost-share requirements are waived, making the money even more accessible to cash-strapped local governments. However, application deadlines are approaching, so communities looking to obtain their share of this grant funding need to have a plan.

Barriers to growth

A brownfield is a property that is difficult to develop because it is contaminated or believed to be contaminated. Unlike a superfund site, a brownfield may have any number of potential contaminants, including hazardous substances, petroleum, asbestos, lead-based paint, mold, meth-lab residue, or mine-scarred lands.

The EPA estimates that more than 450,000 brownfields exist in the United States. Unless addressed, such sites can hamper local development efforts and preclude economic growth.

To facilitate their development, some sites must undergo an extensive assessment process and, if necessary, cleanup. Although grant funding for these activities is available from the EPA and states, navigating the application processes can be confusing and time-consuming. For this reason, communities often opt to work with a trusted partner that can help them overcome the many hurdles in their way.

Help with grant funding

Working with rural and urban communities, state regulators, and the EPA’s Brownfields Program, �鶹TV��վ helps to revitalize communities by providing critical research needed for successful grant applications. We offer a wealth of expertise with  an experienced brownfields team that includes grant writers, licensed geologists and engineers, certified hazardous materials managers, certified industrial hygienists, certified safety professionals, and EPA-certified asbestos and lead-based paint building inspectors and risk assessors.

The company has a proven track record in helping communities procure much-needed funds for brownfields assessment, mitigation, and redevelopment. Some of the recent grants that �鶹TV��վ has helped to obtain include:          

• Gila County Brownfields Coalition, EPA Community-Wide Assessment Grant, awarded in 2021
• Vermillion County, Indiana, EPA Brownfields Community-Wide Assessment Grant, awarded in 2022
• City of Lebanon, Indiana, EPA Brownfields Community-Wide Assessment Grants, awarded in 2014, 2019, and 2022
• Town of Superior, Arizona, Community Development Block Grant for Assessment and Abatement, awarded in 2021
• City of Terre Haute, Indiana, EPA Brownfields Community-wide Assessment Grant, awarded in 2020
• Town of Chester, Connecticut, Connecticut Municipal Brownfields Grant for Assessment, awarded in 2022
• City of Indianapolis, Indiana, EPA Brownfields Multi-Purpose Grant, awarded in 2019
• Lawrenceburg, Aurora, Greendale and Dearborn County Coalition, Indiana, EPA Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant, awarded in 2019

Obtaining an EPA grant for brownfields-related work can benefit communities in many ways, as shown by the example of the grant to Gila County. Serving as the grant administrator, the county represents a coalition of small communities in Arizona that share a prominent history of copper mining that continues today. Known as the “Copper Corridor,” the communities have worked with �鶹TV��վ to address blight issues and win the EPA grant. Armed with this funding, the communities can begin to assess and prioritize their needs, the first step in solving challenges pertaining to brownfields.

After an Award      

Winning a grant is only the first step. �鶹TV��վ collaborates with grant recipients to facilitate public outreach to affected communities. The outreach events are designed to provide information about the brownfield assessment and redevelopment process, benefits to the community, and additional funding opportunities and low-interest loan funding for eligible property-owners.

�鶹TV��վ also stands ready to help communities submit necessary post-award application materials, engage and inform stakeholders and community residents, develop or expand current brownfield inventories, as well as conduct the assessment and remediation of identified brownfield sites. We have extensive experience performing hundreds of brownfields projects with EPA oversight throughout the United States during the last 20 years.

For example, �鶹TV��վ has been working with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community—a Native tribe located in the Phoenix metropolitan area—to implement a $750,000 EPA Brownfields grant that was awarded in 2021.  To this end, �鶹TV��վ is creating an all-encompassing Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Sampling and Analysis Plan, both of which are required by the EPA to be completed and approved before initiating sampling or cleanup activities utilizing grant funds.

On the same project, �鶹TV��վ has also been tapped to complete Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, following ASTM standards, and complete ground-penetrating radar investigations and surveys. �鶹TV��վ also will create an environmental records database, for future use, and conduct a brownfields survey of the community to assist with the creation of a community-wide inventory of blighted properties within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

�鶹TV��վ provides professional testing, inspection, engineering, environmental, and consulting services from more than 150 locations nationwide, enabling us to provide our clients with a superior level of consistent support and resources no matter where their projects may be located. The company employs more than 3,500 professional staff, including professional engineers, geologists and environmental specialists who can be accessed as needed to provide additional project support.

From obtaining grant funding to conducting the necessary assessments and cleanup, �鶹TV��վ can help communities of all sizes address their needs regarding brownfields and unlock the economic and social potential of sites that currently are difficult or impossible to develop.