by Dan Peacock, Integral Corp. and Josh Sandberg, Well Done Foundation

Environmental hazards and liabilities are persistent challenges in redeveloping former industrial properties, and abandoned/orphaned gas or oil wells can make redevelopment particularly difficult. Across the United States, hundreds of thousands or more of these wells complicate land use and property values. The Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission 2021 Idle and Orphan Oil and Gas Wells report¹,  which covered 32 states and 5 Canadian provinces, states: “As of December 31, 2020, the states reported a total of 1,619,071 wells drilled and not plugged, and the provinces reported a total of 372,697.” In parts of central and western Pennsylvania and New York State, where oil and gas production has occurred for more than 150 years, thousands of abandoned wells may pose potential risks and restrict future use. These legacy wells and associated infrastructure constrain remediation and sustainable redevelopment projects, making state and federal investment a critical catalyst. Funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), administered through the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Orphaned Wells Program Office, is helping transform these complicated and burdened properties and turn them into redevelopment and community opportunities.

Oil and Gas Development in Pennsylvania and New York

Oil and gas production began in western Pennsylvania in 1859²,  and the first documented natural gas well was developed in western New York as early as 1821. Although oil and gas production has fluctuated over time, industry growth and evolution has continued, and thousands of wells (if not hundreds of thousands) have been drilled across these regions. More recently, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have fueled a boom in Marcellus Shale gas development in northern and western Pennsylvania (a fracking ban remains in effect in New York³). Abandoned or improperly decommissioned wells and infrastructure can adversely affect communities by serving as conduits for the migration of methane, other hydrocarbons, and brine into aquifers, the land surface, and the atmosphere. The resulting impacts may include diminished groundwater quality, explosive hazards, and significant greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates abandoned wells emit approximately 275,000 tons of methane annually^4,5.

Well Plugging and Decommissioning

Plugging old gas and oil wells can be a complex and costly process⁶.  Typically, it involves determining location and inventory, evaluating the condition of the well and facilities, removing obstructions, and installing cement and mechanical barriers to permanently seal the borehole and prevent the migration of gas, oil, or contaminated water. Ideally, the seals are verified through testing and inspection, remaining equipment is removed and the site is restored to protect groundwater and support future land use. However, approved plugging methods may vary from operator to operator and are generally not consistent from state to state, and deviations to procedures are not consistently or systematically recorded.

Well Plugging and Abandonment: Work before the Plug

Well plugging and abandonment are far more involved than simply setting a rig over a well and sealing it with grout. Before work can begin, the well must first be located and verified, including confirmation of its registration status and available records. Landowner access agreements must be secured, and the project area must be evaluated for environmental permitting requirements associated with wetlands, streams, stream crossings, historic preservation sites, and sensitive resources.

After appropriate permits are secured, erosion and sedimentation control requirements must also be addressed before ground disturbance occurs. Access must then be established. Planning the access road route, securing rights-of-way, and constructing or improving the road can be costly. Many orphan wells have been abandoned for decades and are located in overgrown areas with no usable well pad. If this is the case, a new well pad must be constructed and can require clearing, grading, stabilization, and equipment access.

Regulatory notifications and approvals must be completed, and qualified contractors must be procured before mobilization. All of these steps can require substantial time and money before field mobilization.

Once rigged up, the well should ideally be cleaned out to its original total depth. This may require removing old rods, tubing, casing, or other debris that has been placed down the well. A thorough cleanout provides the best opportunity to understand the wellbore and properly execute the plugging program. Only after the well has been adequately cleaned out can the cementing process proceed toward surface.

In summary, proper well plugging requires significant planning, permitting, access, construction, and preparation before plugging even begins—and both the pre-work and downhole work can be costly.

Due Diligence

Potential buyers of property in Pennsylvania and New York can add a few steps to their due diligence process to check for the presence of abandoned/orphaned gas or oil wells.   

• Search the state oil and gas well databases but be aware that there could be thousands of wells not listed in the databases.
• Review historical environmental database records for oil or gas production equipment that may have been observed or recorded.
• Look for field evidence including odors, 4-gas meter detections, distressed or dead vegetation, hissing sounds emanating from the ground, areas cleared of old growth, hunting cabins with heaters but no signs of a wood stove or fuel tank, dead zones in creeks/ponds with orange staining, 1- to 3-inch metal and/or plastic piping on the ground (noting that sizes can vary), and aboveground storage tanks in uninhabited areas.
• Perform a ground-penetrating radar scan of areas suspected of historical oil or gas production.

Funding Sources for Well Plugging

For properties with abandoned wells requiring proper plugging, funds are available to help with the cost. Act 13 of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act of 2012 established the Marcellus Legacy Fund⁷,  allocating funds to the Orphan or Abandoned Well Plugging Program (OAWP). The Commonwealth Financing Authority of Pennsylvania, which has more than 27,000 identified orphaned wells awaiting plug and abandonment⁸ and more than 6,000 of which are currently eligible for funding⁹,  operates this state level incentive program, offering $40,000 (≤3,000 feet below ground surface, or bgs) to up to $70,000 (>3,000 feet bgs) per well or the cost of plugging the well, whichever is less¹⁰.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation maintains the state’s orphan well inventory and oversees plugging operations. While only a small number of high priority New York wells using IIJA funding have been addressed, the selected wells mitigated environmental risk, preserved water resources, and provided redevelopment potential. A maximum of $1,000,000 for any IIJA OAWP project is available. However, as of fall 2025, less than half of the approximately $4.7B initial investment in IIJA OAWP has been distributed.  

________________________________________

^[1] https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/iogcc/documents/publications/iogcc_idle_and_orphan_wells_2021_final_web.pdf

^[2] https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/programs-and-services/oil-and-gas/legacy-wells

^[3] https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/oil-gas/high-volume-hydraulic-fracturing

^[4] Boutot, J., A.S. Peltz, R. McVay, and M. Kang. 2022. Documented orphaned oil and gas wells across the United States.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 56(20:14228 14236.  https://pubs.acs.org/esthag/article/56/20/14228/871527/Documented-Orphaned-Oil-and-Gas-Wells-Across-the

^[5] Kang, M., J. Boutot, R.C. McVay, K.A. Roberts, S. Jasechko, D. Perrone, T. Wen, G. Lackey, D. Raimi, and D.C. Digiulio. 2023.  Environ. Res. Lett. 18:074012.  doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/acdae7

^[6] https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/29343

^[7] https://dced.pa.gov/programs/orphan-abandoned-well-plugging-program-oawp/

^[8] https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/programs-and-services/oil-and-gas/legacy-wells/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-iija

^[9] http://cedatareporting.pa.gov/Reportserver/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/Public/DEP/OG/SSRS/Abandoned_Orphan_Web

^[10] https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/programs-and-services/oil-and-gas/legacy-wells

The Authors:

Dan Peacock has more than 15 years of experience managing environmental, construction, and oil and gas projects, specializing in site investigations, remediation programs, and field operations. His expertise includes implementing environmental sampling and compliance programs in complex environments with significant regulatory and community engagement requirements. He has extensive experience coordinating multidisciplinary teams, managing subcontractors and stakeholders while working as Owner’s Representative for various sites, including oil and gas facilities and plug and abandonment sites.

Josh Sandberg is COO of the Well Done Foundation and brings more than 20 years of experience supporting environmental, oil and gas, and geologic projects throughout Pennsylvania and New York States. Leveraging extensive expertise in orphan well identification, inventory development, field support, plug and abandonment, and project management, his firm helps clients successfully navigate the technical and logistical challenges associated with well locating and plugging programs.

by James P. Cinelli, P.E., P.G., BCEE, Liberty Environmental

In my previous article I discussed the importance of following established design standards to ensure the effectiveness of vapor intrusion mitigation systems. However, the ultimate success of these engineered controls does not rely solely on their design. It also hinges heavily on rigorous construction inspections during installation. Without diligent oversight, even the most advanced systems can fail, leaving future occupants exposed to site contaminants.

The first line of defense against vapor intrusion is the sub-slab vapor barrier or membrane. Vapor intrusion membranes are engineered to resist chemical degradation and diffusion. However, a barrier is only effective if it remains completely contiguous. Movement of heavy machinery, sharp gravel, dropped tools, and worker foot traffic can easily puncture a membrane. Furthermore, sealing penetrations by utilities, columns, and perimeter foundations requires careful workmanship.

Construction inspections ensure that every seam is properly taped according to manufacturer specifications. Inspectors verify that all penetrations are sealed with appropriate boots or mastics, and that any accidental punctures are immediately repaired before the concrete slab is poured. Once concrete covers the barrier, identifying and fixing leaks becomes virtually impossible, making real-time inspection during installation non-negotiable.

Complementing the barrier is the active or passive sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS). An SSDS relies on a network of sub-slab pits or perforated piping in a permeable venting layer beneath the slab. This network creates a continuous low-pressure zone that intercepts vapors and vents them safely above the roofline. For an SSDS to function correctly, the sub-slab dynamics must allow for uniform airflow. Inspectors are responsible for verifying that the aggregate venting layer meets the specified thickness and gradation, ensuring it is free of fines that could clog the system. They also check the slope and placement of the piping network to prevent moisture accumulation or blockages that could choke the airflow. In some jurisdictions, environmental agencies and/or local building departments mandate post-installation testing (typically by measuring vacuum at predetermined monitoring points) to confirm system integrity before issuing certificates of occupancy. Performing frequent inspections to ensure strict adherence to project drawings and specifications helps to eliminate the possibility of disruptive, costly and time-consuming system retrofits after start-up.

The Author:

James P. Cinelli is an environmental engineer and the president of Liberty Environmental, Inc., an environmental consulting firm which he co-founded in 2004. Mr. Cinelli has over 30 years of experience in environmental consulting with an emphasis in the areas of soil & groundwater remediation, brownfield redevelopment, and water resource engineering. He has provided expert witness testimony and has spoken at state and national conferences on topics such as stormwater management, erosion control, site remediation, and spill prevention.

by Sarah Sieloff and Lucy Bishop, Haley & Aldrich

Key takeaways: 

• EPA Brownfields funding will drop 76% in FY2027, meaning smaller, more competitive grants.
• Applications open in fall 2026 with a 60-day completion window.
• Position yourself for success now by building a site inventory, forming partnerships and seeking matching dollars, and getting feedback from EPA officials.

After five years and $1.5 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Brownfields Program is returning to pre-BIL funding levels. Following $270.5 million in awards in FY2026, EPA will award a projected $64 million in FY2027, a 76% decrease. Grants will be smaller and more competitive. That said, that $64 million needs to go somewhere, and that somewhere could very well be to your community. 

Applications will open in fall 2026 and be due 60 days later. To position your community to compete optimally, start now.

What’s new with the EPA Brownfields program this year?

On June 24, EPA announced the results of its FY2026 Brownfields grant competition, which marked the last cycle in which the agency offered historically large grants made possible by the BIL. EPA awarded 224 grants worth $270.5 million to 221 tribes, nonprofits, and local governments. Haley & Aldrich authored six successful grants, winning $14.5 million for five public entities in four states. Notably, our team wrote one-quarter of the largest Cleanup Grants awarded nationwide, each worth $4 million.

Moving forward, the FY2027 EPA Brownfields grant competition will depend solely on congressional appropriations. Due to the FY2027 funding decrease to approximately $64 million, we anticipate a 52% decrease in the number of competitive brownfield grants awarded and a 76% decrease in total announced investment. Table 1 summarizes EPA’s projected FY2027 awards.

Estimated EPA FY2027 Brownfields grant awards:

Source: Multipurpose, Assessment, RLF, and Cleanup Grant Application Resources | US EPA 

In addition to providing additional funding, the BIL temporarily suspended cost-sharing requirements, which are expected to return in FY2027, meaning we anticipate that a 20% match will be required for Cleanup and Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) applicants.

Because this next grant cycle will be so competitive, it’s critical to pre-position your team and your project for success now.

Setting up for success.

An application for EPA Brownfields funding is a significant undertaking, and planning early is critical. Regardless of the type of funding for which you intend to apply, there are steps you can take today to be prepared for this fall.

Develop an inventory. This is a critical task for any entity seeking assessment funds. Whether in GIS, in Excel, or via free online tools like Kansas State University’s free app-based Brownfields Inventory Tool, start gathering information about your priority sites. Remember that the definition of “brownfield” is broad and can include real or perceived contamination. From that inventory, identify four to five priority sites and learn everything you can about them, such as size, past uses, existing infrastructure connections, zoning, proximity to sensitive environmental areas, proximity to economically distressed neighborhoods, community concerns (like dumping and other public nuisances), redevelopment interests (Does the surrounding area need housing? Retail? Jobs?), and relevant stakeholders. Where feasible, try to engage property owners to educate them about EPA’s Brownfields program and the brownfields redevelopment process.

Build partnerships. EPA’s application asks you to identify your key partners and their roles in your project. Start having conversations now to identify partners and solidify their roles. Try to assemble a mix of public, nonprofit, and private actors. Engage neighborhood groups from the areas around your priority sites, meet with public entities that have jurisdiction in those areas, and don’t forget local foundations or other groups that have a stake in redevelopment, such as housing developers (both for- and nonprofit) and public health authorities and advocates.

In addition to the practical effect of advancing your project, identifying your partners can help bring your story to life for EPA and make the project and its impact real for reviewers, so think broadly about whom to include. EPA reads hundreds of grant applications with similar information every year, so a good story about local need with the project-specific partners to back it up can make the difference and give your application an edge. For example, a sports league that has an interest in turning a brownfield into a park or an athletic field could be a key part of your team. In one successful grant our team authored, a kayaking group that served low-income families wanted access to a local waterway, which cleanup of our target site would help facilitate. Their partnership illustrated the project’s potential impact and added detail to the picture of community need.

Once upon a time, EPA accepted letters of support as part of the Brownfields grant application process. The agency ended that practice around a decade ago, but the actions you and your partners take now can communicate the same kinds of messages, and that has storytelling power. We’ve all heard that actions speak louder than words. When you have only 10 to 12 pages to tell your project’s story, the fact that you’ve taken preemptive actions to foster your project’s success and meet your community’s needs can form a powerful part of your narrative.

Meet with EPA and state officials. Your EPA regional team and state brownfields officials are your best advocates. Start talking with them now and get them familiar with your project and your needs. They have seen many brownfields projects come and go, and they can advise about what works, what doesn’t, and how to fix it. They may also have other ideas for you about funding.

Solidify your match. Cleanup and RLF grants require a 20% match, which can be in cash or in-kind. An in-kind match — which commonly includes staff time or materials — requires documentation, and it’s best to check your plan with EPA ahead of time, especially if you are being creative with the match. Understand the requirements, and be prepared to communicate how you plan to comply in your application. That way, you can be clear about your intentions without taking an unnecessary chance.

These steps may seem small, but they can make all the difference. Every funder wants to see their dollars as the critical factor that will make a project possible. So, the most compelling application will clearly communicate to EPA that your team is already working to advance brownfield redevelopment and that EPA’s investment is the keystone that will make the difference to your program. Your commitment to doing something to advance brownfield redevelopment when you have no grant speaks volumes about your ability to make redevelopment possible once you have dedicated resources.

Applied and weren’t awarded?

If you applied for FY2026 funding and weren’t awarded, we recommend immediately scheduling a debrief with EPA. The agency will not provide written comments, so be prepared to take copious notes. Make sure your debrief helps you understand exactly where you lost points and why. Once you’ve received feedback, consider reapplying. If you do choose to reapply, it’s essential that you thoroughly address all of EPA’s feedback. Rewriting can be a substantial effort, but it can make the difference: We’ve seen grants miss the mark by very few points and win upon resubmission after a client dissects EPA’s comments and integrates them into a revised application.

Who can help?

Consider pulling in a trusted advisor to support development of your application. They can work with you to brainstorm and develop competitive strategies, as well as share lessons learned that have contributed to successful applications.

The Authors:

Sarah Sieloff, Technical Expert Sarah is an urban planner with a Master’s of Public Affairs from Princeton University who is passionate about helping communities build more sustainable, livable, futures while navigating the rapidly evolving issues related to brownfield redevelopment, land reuse, planning, public engagement, and funding. Before joining Haley & Aldrich, she served as a 2020 Council on Foreign Relations-Hitachi fellow in Japan and the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Creative Land Recycling, where she assisted stakeholders with identifying, securing, and implementing over $35 million in state and federal funding. Sarah also spent nearly four years in federal service, including two years as the Memphis, TN team lead for the White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities.

Lucy Bishop, Environmental Scientist Lucy is an environmental planner and funding strategist, with a degree in Political Science and Environmental Studies from Tulane University.  As a key member of the Haley & Aldrich grant-writing team, Lucy has achieved a 76% EPA Brownfields grant application success rate. During the 2026 grant cycle, she helped secure six EPA Brownfields grants totaling $14.5 million for five clients, including one quarter of the $4 million in Cleanup Grants awarded nationally. Before joining Haley & Aldrich, Lucy supported sustainability impact initiatives at LifeCity L3C and conducted research on energy infrastructure equity and net-zero housing development at Vermont Law School's Institute of Energy & Environment

by Bijan Jafari, Eurofins Environment Testing

Most public conversation about microplastics still centers on the environment: sediment cores, surface trawls, and the slow accumulation of fragments in places far from daily life. That framing isn't wrong, but it's incomplete. Plastic packaging, plastic liners, and plastic containers sit in direct, sustained contact with the food and drink people consume every day, and that contact is a plausible route of exposure in its own right. Over four small studies, we tested that idea against real products: berries in a plastic clamshell, milk in two different container types, two brands of yogurt, and a plastic water bottle put through ordinary handling, to see what a consistent analytical method would actually turn up.

Each sample went through the same core workflow: oxidative digestion and density separation to free particles from the surrounding matrix, vacuum filtration onto a silicon membrane, and Raman spectroscopy to confirm polymer identity and size particles between 20 and 500 micrometers. That range matters as much as the method itself: across all four studies, only particles at or above 20 micrometers were counted, and anything smaller simply falls outside what this method can detect. That consistency in method and size range means the differences described below are differences between products, not artifacts of switching methods midway through.

A caveat worth stating plainly before the results: these are case studies, not surveys. Sample sizes are small, one or two products per comparison, single runs in most cases, and the goal was to demonstrate what this kind of testing can reveal, not to characterize an entire product category. Read the numbers as data points, not verdicts.

Fresh produce picks up more than it's given credit for

Raspberries and strawberries are sold almost universally in rigid plastic clamshells, a packaging format so routine it rarely invites scrutiny. We rinsed roughly 40 grams of each fruit in microplastics analysis grade water, then processed the tissue itself through digestion and density separation to recover any embedded particles.

The raspberries yielded 16 particles, split mainly between polycarbonate and polyethylene. The strawberries yielded nearly twice as many, 30 particles, with polyethylene as the largest single fraction, followed by PET, polycarbonate, and polypropylene. A method blank processed alongside the samples returned 7 particles, which gives a sense of the background against which these counts should be read. In both fruits, the majority of particles fell between 20 and 80 micrometers, well below the threshold of visibility and well within the range that would pass through a rinse under a kitchen faucet.

We can't attribute these particles to the clamshell specifically without further work isolating the packaging from other possible sources, such as agricultural handling or processing equipment. But the presence of polymers matching common packaging plastics, at this concentration, in fruit tissue that never left its original container until testing, is a reasonable basis for asking the question further.

 

Two milk containers, similar totals, different chemistry

Milk packaging varies more than most shoppers register: HDPE jugs, polyethylene-lined paperboard cartons, occasionally glass. We compared an HDPE jug against a PE-lined carton, testing only the first pour from each to isolate whatever the container contributes on its own, before any consumer handling such as shaking, repeated opening, or storage enters the picture.

The two formats produced comparable particle counts: 22 in the jug, 26 in the carton. On magnitude alone, the packaging choice looks close to irrelevant. The polymer breakdown says otherwise. The carton sample was strongly polyethylene-dominant, consistent with its PE liner. The jug showed a more heterogeneous profile, with polycarbonate slightly ahead of polyethylene and a minor PET contribution, pointing to a broader set of contact surfaces contributing particles, from the bottle wall to the cap.

The lesson here is a methodological one as much as a practical one: particle count alone can obscure real differences between products. Two containers releasing similar amounts of microplastic may still be releasing meaningfully different material. 

Two yogurts in the same category, a threefold gap between them

If the milk comparison suggested that packaging format mainly reshuffles composition, the yogurt comparison complicated that picture. We processed the entire contents of two single-serve cups, no subsampling, through the same workflow.

The results diverged sharply. One brand contained 74 particles, 81 percent of them polyethylene. The other contained 27, with a more even split across polyethylene, polypropylene, and PET. That's close to a threefold difference in total particle count between two products occupying the same shelf category, sold in broadly similar single-serve packaging. Particle size was the one dimension that held steady: both brands clustered between 20 and 70 micrometers, with a handful of larger outliers above 150 micrometers in each.

Because both magnitude and composition differed here, packaging format alone doesn't explain the gap. Formulation, processing equipment, or supply chain differences upstream of the retail package are all plausible contributors, and distinguishing between them would require a study designed for that purpose. What this comparison does establish is that product category is a poor predictor of microplastic load. "Yogurt" is not a single answer.

 

What a water bottle releases depends entirely on what you do to it

The first three studies asked what's already present in a product at the point of purchase. The fourth asked what happens during ordinary use. Bottled water is squeezed, reopened, shaken, left in cars and gym bags more than almost anything else people buy, so we built a small pilot around that reality.

We filtered water at 5 micrometers, well below the 20-micrometer threshold used throughout this analysis, to establish a clean starting point. That water was returned to its original bottle, which itself required one round of opening and closing the cap, then a designated stress was applied, and the water was filtered again with a fresh filter, so any particles recovered afterward could be traced to the bottle or cap itself rather than to the water supply. Five conditions were tested: hand-pressing the bottle ten times, opening and closing the cap ten additional times, shaking it a hundred times to approximate a workout, two days of direct sunlight exposure outdoors, and two days in a hot car, with both outdoor exposures occurring in ambient temperatures in the upper 90s°F.

 

The mechanical stresses produced the clearest signal. Hand-pressing raised particle counts from 14 to 203. Shaking had the largest effect of any condition tested, raising polyethylene counts from 29 to 224.

The capping condition is worth walking through in more detail. Before the ten designated open-close cycles were applied, the bottle already showed a PE count of roughly 137. We can't say with confidence where that came from. It's worth noting that every bottle in this study needed at least one open-close cycle just to have the pre-filtered water returned to it, yet the other conditions didn't show a comparable PE level at their own "before" readings, so the single refill cycle alone doesn't obviously explain it. What we can say is what happened next: after the ten additional open-close cycles, PE stayed at roughly that same level, while PET rose from about 7 to 17 over those same cycles. So the designated capping stress corresponded with a measurable increase in PET, but not in PE.

Heat and sunlight behaved differently, and the difference is worth sitting with. Rather than increasing detectable particle counts, both conditions saw them fall: heat from 16 to 7, sunlight exposure from 217 to 128. That drop almost certainly does not mean fewer particles were generated. It more likely means particles were fragmented below our 20-micrometer detection limit, moving out of the size range this method can see rather than out of existence. If that interpretation holds, environmental exposure may be a more significant driver of microplastic generation than these numbers alone suggest. We simply lack the resolution here to confirm it.

This was, again, a pilot: one bottle brand, one run per condition. Baseline particle counts also varied noticeably from one bottle to the next, which is worth flagging on its own. Bottle position wasn't tracked going into the study, but these bottles came from a wrapped multi-pack, and it's reasonable to expect that bottles sitting at the edges or corners of that pack absorbed more mechanical stress in transport than bottles protected in the middle. That kind of unrecorded handling history is a plausible explanation for why the "before" readings differ as much as they do across conditions, and it's a variable a larger follow-up study would want to control for. The pattern within each condition, before versus after, is still worth taking seriously. It just shouldn't be treated as settled.

Reading the four studies together

No single factor explains microplastic contamination across all four products. Packaging format changed composition without changing magnitude in the milk comparison. Something upstream of packaging, whether formulation, processing, or supply chain, appears to drive both magnitude and composition in the yogurt comparison. And in the water bottle study, the product itself barely mattered; what changed the outcome was how it was handled after purchase.

That variability is, in a sense, the actual finding. It argues against treating microplastic exposure as a single, uniform risk tied to one culprit, whether a particular plastic or a particular packaging type, and toward treating it as a property of specific products, specific formats, and specific handling conditions, each of which needs to be measured rather than assumed. Environmental matrices like water and soil remain important, but this data suggests they're an incomplete picture of where exposure actually happens. The refrigerator and the pantry deserve the same scrutiny.

The Author:

Bijan, an expert in microplastics analysis, leads the Microplastics Department at Eurofins Environment Testing, where he and his team pioneered the use of Raman spectroscopy to develop commercial-scale microplastics analysis. With years of experience in environmental testing and analytical method development, he has worked alongside his team to advance microplastic contamination research, ensuring high-quality, regulatory-compliant data for scientific and industrial applications. Under his leadership, Eurofins has expanded its capabilities, supporting private clients, government agencies and academics to further the field and support the industry by improving turn-around-times and expanding testing options.

by Lee Koska, PE, Weston & Sampson

A Community Facility with a Long History

Every year, millions of tons of municipal solid waste flow through Massachusetts for disposal. Though most people don’t think about their trash every day, the strategies for dealing with these literal mountains of waste have evolved over the decades. Across the state, the closure of many “town dumps” over the last 30 years means that solid waste has been increasingly diverted to other locations for final disposal, including incinerators, regional landfills, or out of state. To support these changes in disposal practices, many town dumps were converted into transfer stations where residents and commercial haulers drop off waste and recycling.

Beyond acting as a transportation nexus, transfer stations have also become a focal point of the local community. A social gathering point, each transfer station is a unique but surprisingly beloved town fixture. 

Removing the Past to Build the Future

In Winchester, their transfer station was also originally the town’s landfill before the advent of modern regulations. In the 1960s, an incinerator was built on the site to burn waste and reduce overall volume, but it only operated until the 1970s. The site was subsequently converted to the transfer station with the incinerator itself remaining largely unused for decades. 

In 2020, when the town decided to move forward with much needed repairs and improvements to the transfer station, Manager Nick Parlee saw an opportunity to modernize and upgrade it to meet current trends and standards for solid waste and recycling. To help, he hired Weston & Sampson to design and permit the facility and maximize the use of about $6 million in allocated funds in support of a more modern facility.

First and foremost, the old incinerator had to go. Located in the center of the site, it acted as a barrier to traffic flow and took up valuable real estate and, having sat abandoned since its closure, had fallen into disrepair. The structure also housed the site’s electrical connection, which was in jeopardy due to the deteriorating building condition. Following abatement of asbestos lining the furnaces, removal of decades of pigeon guano, and disposal of residual hazardous materials remaining in the burn chambers for 50 years, the building was reduced to a pile of bricks in the span of a single weekend.  

The impacts from the incinerator however were not limited to traffic challenges and an eyesore. Despite having only operated for about 10 years, it had nonetheless resulted in large volumes of ash underneath both the transfer station and the nearby high school. Capped in the 2000s, the on-site ash exhibited high concentrations of lead and other heavy metals and required careful handling during construction.  

Just south of the old incinerator, a new elevated recycling area was constructed for resident and commercial recycling dropoff which allowed better traffic flow and improved safety by keeping the residents separated from facility vehicles and waste handling operations. To support its construction, however, an existing hillside needed to be excavated, which required management of hundreds of tons of contaminated material.

Managing Legacy Contamination

Soil and ash under the recycling area exhibited elevated concentrations of leachable lead that required stabilization prior to off-site disposal. An additive was used to bind the metals into a solid crystalline matrix and render it safe to transport and dispose. Federal RCRA regulations required this work to be done within the excavation area without moving the soil and for testing to be done on every 100 tons of soil to verify effectiveness.

Elevated lead was not the only contaminant issue at the site. During the precharacterization phase, we identified an area of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) impacts near the scrap metal handling area. Although the source of the PCB impacts was initially unknown, interviews with facility staff determined that several transformers were once brought to the transfer station by an outside contractor and dumped in this area for the town to manage. Oil from these transformers then leaked into the ground, forming a localized area of impacts. Since concentrations exceeded regulatory thresholds and the date of the spill was estimated to have occurred in 1992, we determined that Toxic Substances Recovery Act (TSCA) cleanup regulations applied.

Following several rounds of sampling, the material was ultimately excavated and disposed of at an out-of-state TSCA landfill, along with an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) filed for the area. This required that the area remain free of structures and that an expanded concrete material pad be maintained as a cap over residual contamination.

Completed in 2024, facility improvements have greatly modernized a vital piece of town infrastructure, but Nick Parlee had further plans for the facility. Through state grant funding, the town procured an anaerobic digestor to process food waste from the local middle school and other residential and commercial sources. The residuals from this process are added to the existing compost operation to enrich the final material, which is provided free to town residents to use.

The town is also now looking at opportunities to install a large solar array on an awning system to both provide renewable energy revenue and to protect residents from the rain and snow when dropping off their recyclables and waste. Weston & Sampson continues to work closely with the town by supporting the permitting and engineering efforts for these follow-on projects.

A Model for Sustainable Waste Management

The Winchester transfer station exemplifies the changes in solid waste management over the last 100 years. From a town dump to an incinerator to a capped landfill and modern transfer station, the facility has continuously evolved to meet the needs of both the community and increasing environmental regulation. Now pivoting into renewable energy and food waste management, the town remains at the forefront of municipal waste management. Through the efforts of Nick Parlee and many others, the town is well positioned for changes in waste disposal regulations for decades to come.

The Author:

Lee Koska, PE (MA), is a Remediation Team Leader at Weston & Sampson in Reading, Massachusetts. He can be reached at koskal@wseinc.com.

EPA’s early fiscal year 2027 outlook points to a smaller federal funding pool, fewer grant pathways and a growing advantage for communities that prepare before solicitations open

By Derek Street, Brownfields & Community Revitalization Practice, Onterris

Federal investment has expanded what communities can accomplish through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Program. The next funding cycle will test how well applicants can convert that momentum into focused, achievable projects.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), formally the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, provided an additional $1.5 billion for the EPA Brownfields Program through a five-year funding initiative. That temporary expansion supported larger applications, broader project pipelines and more ambitious redevelopment strategies across the country.

It also created expectations around federal capacity that were never intended to continue indefinitely.

As BIL support winds down, brownfields funding is not disappearing. EPA continues to make awards and support assessment, cleanup and redevelopment. The change is one of scale and competition. Communities will likely pursue a smaller pool of funding under tighter program parameters, making project selection and application quality increasingly important.

EPA’s preliminary outlook for fiscal year 2027 provides an early view of that transition. The agency expects to publish solicitations for Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund and Cleanup grants in fall 2026. Applications are expected to close about 60 calendar days after publication.

That window leaves little time to resolve site access, confirm eligibility, gather community evidence or establish redevelopment partnerships. Applicants that wait for the final Notice of Funding Opportunity will begin the competition behind communities that have already completed those steps.

A $64 Million Planning Framework Changes the Competitive Equation

EPA’s current fiscal year 2027 planning assumptions identify $64 million across five anticipated grant competitions:

• $15 million for Community-wide Assessment Grants
• $13 million for Assessment Coalition Grants
• $12 million for Community-wide Assessment Grants for States and Tribes
• $10 million for Revolving Loan Fund Grants
• $14 million for Cleanup Grants

EPA cautions that these figures may change. The agency has also indicated that it does not expect to offer a Multipurpose Grant competition in fiscal year 2027.

The absence of Multipurpose Grants is a significant planning constraint. These awards have allowed recipients to combine eligible assessment, cleanup and planning work within one grant structure. Communities that might previously have assembled those activities under a single application must now determine which available funding category best matches their immediate needs and delivery capacity.

The decision should begin with the project, not the funding announcement.

A community with several promising properties but limited environmental information may benefit most from a Community-wide Assessment Grant. A municipality with control of a priority site and a credible redevelopment plan may be better positioned for Cleanup funding. Regional applicants may find that an Assessment Coalition aligns with their shared geography and capacity. Communities with recurring cleanup financing needs may consider a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), provided they can manage the additional financial and administrative responsibilities.

The goal is not simply to submit an application. It is to pursue the funding opportunity that best aligns with the project's needs and the community's capacity to deliver results.

The Program’s Public Value Has Not Changed

A smaller funding pool does not reduce the importance of brownfields work.

Underused and contaminated properties can constrain housing development, weaken commercial corridors, depress property values and create environmental or public health concerns. When communities address those sites strategically, the land can support housing development, business activity, public facilities, renewable energy, health services, recreation and other productive uses.

As of July 1, 2026, EPA reports that its Brownfields and Land Revitalization work has helped communities:

• Assess 43,397 properties
• Complete cleanup at 3,106 properties
• Prepare 13,236 properties for anticipated reuse
• Leverage $46 billion
• Support 230,503 jobs

These results help explain the program’s continuing appeal across political and geographic lines. They also show why demand is unlikely to decline simply because supplemental BIL funding is ending.

Through fiscal year 2025, EPA reports that each Brownfields Grant dollar awarded leveraged an average of $19.47. The agency also reports an average of 10 jobs leveraged for every $100,000 awarded.

Annual Appropriations Will Again Set the Boundaries

EPA has stated that fiscal year 2027 Brownfields Grants will rely entirely on annual appropriations for the Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program.

That return to annual funding means applicants should develop their strategies around existing statutory limits rather than the larger capacity available during the BIL-supported period. Under current requirements, assessment spending may not exceed $200,000 for an individual site. Cleanup and RLF recipients must also provide a 20% cost share or match.

Potential federal legislation could change parts of the program, but applicants should not treat proposed reforms as current policy.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously advanced S. 347, the Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2025, on February 5, 2025 and the bill was placed on the Senate legislative calendar. In March 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment examined several brownfields proposals. On May 14, 2026, the subcommittee reported H.R. 8739, the Brownfields Revitalization for a Better Tomorrow Act, to the full committee by voice vote.

Options discussed through the legislative process include higher award limits, revised cost-share provisions, broader eligibility, additional rural support and new financing mechanisms. These proposals indicate continued interest in brownfields redevelopment, but they have not yet replaced the rules governing current applications.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate for S. 347 states that the bill would authorize $200 million per year from 2025 through 2030 for Brownfields Program grants under CERCLA Section 104(k). It would also authorize $375 million over that same period for state response programs, subject to congressional appropriations.

Authorization does not guarantee that Congress will provide the full amount. Until new legislation is enacted and funded, communities should prepare applications that comply with the program as it exists today. A project that works under current requirements can be adjusted if Congress later expands the available tools. A project that depends on an unpassed provision may not be ready when the application period opens.

Funding Access Is Part of Project Risk

The amount awarded is only one part of a brownfields financing strategy. The timing and accessibility of that funding also affect whether redevelopment remains on schedule.

In early 2025, the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments reported that it lost access to a fiscal year 2022 RLF award totaling $8,661,808 following federal action associated with executive orders issued by President Trump. The council said the suspension affected 13 projects involving housing, private development and regional revitalization.

Connecticut lawmakers similarly reported that the organization could not draw an approximately $8.66 million balance through the federal payment portal.

Those cases should not be interpreted as representative of every Brownfields Grant. EPA has continued to announce selections and administer funding opportunities. It does, however, demonstrate how an administrative delay can affect projects that rely on coordinated financing, property transactions, construction schedules or private partners.

Applicants should account for that possibility before an award is made. A resilient funding strategy addresses the documentation requirements, drawdown timing, supplemental financing and steps required to preserve project momentum if federal reviews delay access to funds.

Five Disciplines Can Strengthen a Fiscal Year 2027 Application

A more selective competition does not make funding unattainable. It makes disciplined preparation more valuable.

Match the project to the correct grant

The first step is to examine the purpose and requirements of every expected grant type rather than defaulting to the category applicants may have pursued before. The lack of a Multipurpose competition makes this evaluation especially important.

The selected grant should correspond to the project’s current stage. Assessment funding advances sites that need environmental investigation. Cleanup funding supports properties with sufficient characterization, ownership and reuse direction. An RLF addresses a repeatable financing need rather than function as a one-time substitute for an individual Cleanup Grant.

Support the target area with evidence

General statements about contamination or community decline are unlikely to make an application stand out.

Connect the proposed target area to documented local conditions in the application. Useful evidence may include vacancy, historic disinvestment, housing demand, health concerns, infrastructure plans, environmental burdens, employment needs or adopted economic development priorities.

The strongest data establishes both need and consequence. It explains why the area requires intervention and what the community could gain when specific properties return to use.

Present a credible group of sites

A lengthy inventory does not necessarily demonstrate readiness. A focused pipeline of eligible properties with identifiable next steps can provide a clearer case for investment.

For each priority site, applicants should understand ownership, access, known or suspected contamination, past uses and likely redevelopment potential. It’s also important  to explain how the proposed assessment or cleanup activity will remove a barrier to reuse.

The site list should function as an implementation plan, not a collection of possibilities.

Explain what follows the environmental work

EPA funding often serves as a catalyst rather than the sole source of redevelopment capital.

Include details that describe how assessment findings, cleanup activities or RLF financing will connect to later action. That explanation may address site control, development partners, public approvals, infrastructure, market feasibility, community engagement and potential public or private financing.

A technically sound cleanup strategy becomes more competitive when reviewers can see the route from environmental work to community benefit.

Request an amount the project can use well

Larger requests do not automatically create stronger applications.

In a limited funding cycle, a carefully scoped request may be more persuasive than a larger proposal that relies on unresolved property access, uncertain matching funds or speculative redevelopment assumptions.

Align the budget with work that can be reasonably completed within the grant period. For Cleanup and RLF applications, incorporate the required 20% match into the financing plan from the beginning. Those applying for an Assessment Coalition Grant will need to consider the $200,000 per-site limit when determining how many properties the proposed work can credibly advance.

Revolving Loan Funds Require Institutional Capacity

An RLF can extend the value of federal investment beyond a single project. Recipients use the award to issue cleanup loans and subgrants. Loan repayments return to the fund and may support later projects.

That revolving structure also creates operational demands that do not apply to every grant category. EPA expects recipients to demonstrate capabilities in real estate finance, credit analysis, loan servicing, compliance and long-term program administration.

EPA’s preliminary fiscal year 2027 framework anticipates:

• A maximum five-year project period
• Awards of up to $1 million
• Approximately 10 awards
• $10 million in total RLF funding
• A 20% cost share or match

Applicants will need to establish more than environmental need. They should show that they can build a project pipeline, complete financial review, structure loans or subgrants, monitor performance and move funds efficiently after receiving an award.

Existing RLF recipients should maintain accurate performance records and keep viable cleanup projects ready. They should also expect close attention to spending, compliance and demonstrated outcomes.

Communities without an RLF should assess whether creating one supports their long-term redevelopment strategy. In some cases, working with an established recipient or joining a coalition may provide a more practical path than building a new fund administration program.

Limited Funding Can Improve Project Selection

The end of BIL expansion creates a real financial constraint. It also provides an opportunity to improve how communities prioritize brownfield properties.

During periods of higher funding, a project may advance largely because it qualifies. Under tighter conditions, eligibility becomes the starting point. The project must also be distinct, feasible and supported by a credible route to reuse.

That pressure can produce stronger investment decisions. Communities can focus resources on properties where environmental work will remove a defined barrier, where partners are prepared to act and where redevelopment can produce measurable public value.

The right question is not, “How large a grant can we pursue?”

It is, “Which sites can move from uncertainty toward productive use during the grant period?”

The answer will determine the application’s scope.

Start Preparing Brownfield Grant Applications Before Fall 2026

Fiscal year 2027 begins October 1, 2026. With EPA anticipating fall solicitations and an application period of about 60 days, the practical preparation window is already open.

Communities can act now by:

• Confirming applicant and site eligibility
• Establishing property ownership, access or control
• Prioritizing sites with achievable reuse potential
• Documenting environmental, economic and community needs
• Selecting the most appropriate grant category
• Defining partner responsibilities
• Developing a realistic scope, schedule and budget
• Identifying the 20% match for Cleanup or RLF applications
• Planning for funding delays or administrative review
• Connecting environmental activities to redevelopment financing

Continue monitoring EPA guidance because anticipated amounts, dates and requirements may change before the final solicitations are released. Early preparation does not mean assuming the preliminary framework is final. It means completing the work that will remain useful under most versions of the competition.

Brownfields redevelopment has never depended on funding alone. Progress requires technical evidence, community trust, sustained coordination and a feasible vision for reuse.

The fiscal year 2027 cycle will place greater weight on those fundamentals. Communities that select the correct funding route, narrow the scope to executable work and demonstrate how federal support will unlock lasting benefits will enter the competition with the strongest case.

The Author:

Derek Street is a Principal Geologist with Onterris, specializing in brownfields and community revitalization. Prior to joining the private sector, Derek served with U.S. EPA Region 4, where his work focused on Brownfields grants, Revolving Loan Fund programs, grant implementation and compliance, and land revitalization initiatives. Today, he works with communities, regional organizations, and other public-sector partners across the country to develop and implement brownfields strategies, navigate federal funding requirements, and advance contaminated and underutilized properties toward productive reuse.

By Joel Kane, Fleming Lee Shue

When it comes to environmental contamination and its effect on living things, there is a tendency to see the relationship as fairly black and white. Typically, as environmental professionals we view any level of contamination as bad. However, some scientists have presented that the relationship might not be that simple.

The Hormetic Effect or “hormesis” occurs when a living thing has a two-phase response to a contaminant. In certain doses the response to the stressor is positive (beneficial) and in other doses it is negative. For example, a very small dose of zinc can boost your immune system, but high doses can poison you.

This process is typically thought to be an adaptive response to stress (in this case the contamination)—the “low dose contaminant stress” triggers overzealous cellular repair and maintenance. This overcompensation of the cell in turn produces a low-dose beneficial effect. Similar to how frequently performing maintenance on your car—like changing oil and rotating your tires would be beneficial. However, the most interesting instances of hormesis occur when low doses of harmful environmental toxins are shown to be beneficial.

For decades toxicologists have studied and confirmed the linear trend of mid-to-high dose response to environmental contaminants (E.g. Mercury is bad for you, more mercury is even worse). This is generally referred to as the linear, no threshold (LNT) dose response. It assumes that a contaminant proven to be dangerous at high concentrations—will be dangerous at any concentration. However, a movement of toxicologists have argued that hormetic response curves (see figure below) exist in the relationships between hundreds of environmental contaminants and living things.

For example, low doses of heavy metals have been shown to potentially show some benefit to stream ecosystems.¹ Low doses of dioxin have been shown to reduce tumor risk in rats.² Some crop growth was stimulated by low concentrations of hexavalent chromium.³ Low concentrations of crude oil have been shown to potentially benefit certain plant growth.⁴ Hormesis was also cited in the Trump Administration’s arguments to lower the regulatory guidance values for various contaminants including—radiation.⁵

What Does this Mean for Environmental Consulting? 

So, what does this mean? Could hormetic dose response change the way we view environmental contamination? Should regulations change—cleanup standards be reduced? Should all citizens demand 5 ppb chromium be included in their drinking water? In short, definitely no.

Although a fascinating scientific phenomenon, most toxicologists argue that the “benefits” of hormesis are not even close to being worth the risks that a regulatory reworking could have on public health. In fact, the majority of environmental experts have criticized recent hormesis support by the Trump Administration, citing it as a flimsy pretext to weaken environmental regulations of well-known toxic substances.⁶

The truth is, hormesis is often based on a small sample size and individual responses to specific chemicals, i.e. what is beneficial for some—could still potentially adversely affect others. Furthermore, many hormesis studies examine these dose relationships in a lab setting. In real-world conditions, toxins regularly mix and interact, which can vastly alter their effect on the population. The unpredictable and often unreproducible nature of hormesis in real-world conditions means that responsible regulation should mandate that a conservative approach be applied to contaminant thresholds and guidance values. One that is inclusive of all people.

Ultimately, hormesis reminds us that environmental science is rarely as simple as it first appears. Although hormesis alone should not dictate how environmental cleanup standards are established, it illustrates why environmental professionals must remain curious, engage with emerging evidence, and allow evolving science to sharpen how we investigate sites, evaluate risk, and design remedies. As environmental professionals we need to approach that responsibility first and foremost as scientists, keeping our staff at the forefront of the field so we can provide our clients with advice that is both technically sound and practical. 

1.Lefcort, Hugh, Freedman, Zachary. “Hormetic Effects of Heavy Metals in Aquatic Snails: Is a Little Bit of Pollution Good?” Ecohealth, 2008.  

2.Calabrese, Edward. “Paradigm Lost, Paradigm Found: The Re-emergence of Hormesis as a Fundamental Dose Response Model in the Toxicological Sciences.” Environmental Pollution, 2005.  

3.Patnaik, Anita, Achary V. Mohan. “Chromium (VI)-induced Hormesis and Genotoxicity are Mediated Through Oxidative Stress in Root Cells of Allium cepa L.” Plant Growth Regulation, 2013 

4.Carr, R. “Vegetative Growth in Soils Containing Crude Petroleum.” Soil Sciences. 1919.  

5.Malone, Patrick. “Radiation Is Good for You? The Heretical View Gains Ground Under Trump.” Center for Public Integrity, 27 February 2019.  

6.Rust, Susanne. “Scientist Says Some Pollution is Good for You—a Disputed Claim Trump’s EPA Has Embraced.” Los Angeles Times, 19 February 2019.  

The Author:

Joel Kane is a Senior Associate at Fleming Lee Shue, where he oversees the firm’s technical operations and manages a diverse portfolio of remediation projects across the greater New York Metropolitan Area. He specializes in complex remediation sites and his experience spans both the public and private sectors.

By Jeremiah Duncan, Ph.D., GZA GeoEnvironmental

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are well known as contaminants at this point. However, it is less well-known and may be surprising to both regulators and owners that many PFAS are not currently detectable but do transform in the environment to detectable and regulated PFAS. In fact, there were many more of these compounds, known as “precursors,” used commercially than the ones you have probably heard of (e.g., PFOA and PFOS). In this blog, we’ll discuss what these precursors are, and how to anticipate the regulatory concerns they might raise.

There are tens of thousands of PFAS, but only about 1,400 of them have seen any form of commercial production; of those, about 256 compounds were sold in large quantities on the market for any sort of industrial use, making them the most likely to be encountered in the environment. Of all the known PFAS, the most common analytical techniques test for up to 40, and only a handful of compounds are regulated.

In short, the regulated compounds are barely the tip of the PFAS iceberg. Many of those other PFAS that aren’t regulated can, with time, transform into compounds that are regulated. While the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond has given PFAS the nickname “forever chemicals,” those aren’t the only bonds in these compounds. The weaker bonds in precursors can break down over time, until what remains is primarily the original portion of the molecule with fluorinated remains, and you are left with a molecule like PFOA or PFOS. For this reason, PFOA, PFOS, and related molecules with longer or shorter fluorinated carbons chains are often termed “terminal” compounds.

Imagine an arrow—with fletching, a shaft, and an arrowhead—embedded in a tree. Over time, the fletching may drop away, the shaft may snap or degrade, but the arrowhead will remain in the tree. PFAS compounds can act much the same way, with the terminal PFAS (e.g., PFOS) as the arrowhead, in your water and soil.

Because most of these precursors cannot currently be measured in environmental samples, they are the “unknown unknowns” of the PFAS world—and they may be a source of detectable, regulated compounds. The good news is that, while we cannot currently test for them, these precursors aren’t completely invisible, if you know how to look. The Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay, for example, uses an oxidant and heat to transform the precursors in a sample, and then test for the terminal PFAS. Knowledge is power. Knowing whether there may be precursors slowly transforming into regulated compounds can anticipate future problems on a site, inform remediation plans, and in some cases, be used to demonstrate that the responsibility for the contamination lies elsewhere.

For developers and owners, it’s key to take the following steps:

• Determine, as much as possible, what the history of your site is, focusing on what was manufactured or used on site and whether it might include any form of PFAS. 
• Work with your due diligence team to find records of all PFAS that might have been used, not just regulated ones.
• Remember that precursors can transform over a lengthy timeframe, and they may not degrade completely. Speak with a project manager about whether a TOP assay may be advisable.
• Stay abreast of regulatory changes, especially ones that regulate PFAS as a class, instead of individual compounds.

 We often talk about PFAS in environmental or hydrological terms, but it’s important to remember the key role chemistry plays with these compounds. By knowing the chemistry of what was used on your site, you can plan more effectively for regulatory risk.

The Author:

Jeremiah Duncan, Ph.D. Dr. Duncan is a Senior Chemist with the Environmental Remediation and Environmental Site Investigation Groups at GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. He provides specialized expertise in analytical and environmental chemistry, based on more than 25 years of consulting and academic experience. He also held an AAAS fellowship at the U.S. EPA in Washington, DC working on regulation of emerging contaminants and the environmental implications and applications of nanomaterials. He currently serves on a working group with the National Ground Water Association to co-author a white paper on PFAS forensics. Contact him at Jeremiah.Duncan@GZA.com or 603-707-3204.

By Daniel Claycomb, P.G. and Joe Kraycik, P.G., CQA, Integral Consulting, Inc. 

The Women’s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP) is a Philadelphia based, women led nonprofit dedicated to advancing social and economic equity for low income women and their families through the development of affordable housing, the provision of supportive services, and advocacy for equitable public policy.

Founded in 1987, WCRP emerged from grassroots organizing in North Philadelphia after local women successfully challenged discriminatory lending practices, leveraging the momentum to address neighborhood disinvestment and housing instability. The organization involves residents and neighbors in their design to ensure homes meet the real-life needs of the families who live there.

Over the last 40 years the organization has grown to become a nationally recognized, innovative developer that has built more than 414 units of housing and invested $155 million in some of Philadelphia’s poorest neighborhoods.

Integral Consulting, Inc. (Integral) has provided environmental consulting services to WCRP on three recent projects. Each project was developed on brownfield sites owned by a community land trust. 

Linda Lockman King Apartments

WCRP recently celebrated the groundbreaking of the Linda Lockman King Apartments, a new affordable housing development located at 5500 Haverford Avenue in West Philadelphia. The event marked an important milestone in WCRP’s ongoing commitment to creating stable, permanently affordable housing for low income Philadelphians, particularly women and their families. 

The Linda Lockman King Apartments are designed to remain affordable for generations to come. The four story building will include 33 rental units, with nine units fully wheelchair accessible. Twenty three of the apartments will be supported by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, helping ensure access for families most in need.

The development is named in honor of Linda Lockman King, a beloved West Philadelphia community leader and social worker known for her tireless dedication to neighborhood families. King organized free food programs, coordinated youth summer initiatives, and dreamed of transforming land across from Philadelphia Baptist Church into affordable housing—a vision now brought to life through this project.

In addition to developing and managing the property, WCRP will provide on site supportive services for residents, reinforcing its holistic approach to housing. Once completed, the Linda Lockman King Apartments will provide a safe, affordable home for 33 Philadelphia families, strengthening the surrounding community and advancing the city’s broader efforts to address housing insecurity.

Integral conducted Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA); Phase II investigations involving soil, groundwater, and vapor intrusion evaluations; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) evaluations including Noise Abatement and Control Analysis and Explosive and Flammable Facilities Analysis; preparation of a Soil Management Plan; oversight of smoke testing associated with vapor barrier installation; and provided oversight and consulting during redevelopment activities. 

Abigail Pankey Apartments

Another WCRP project, the Abigail Pankey Apartments, was completed in early 2026 in West Philadelphia’s Mantua neighborhood. This apartment complex consists of 32 units including 22 two-bedroom and 10 three-bedroom units, all suited for families with children. Eight apartments are fully accessible for individuals with disabilities and two are sensory units designed for individuals with hearing and visual differences. 

Abigail Pankey Apartments were built within a rapidly changing neighborhood that has received multiple revitalization designations, including HUD Choice Neighborhood, Promise Zone, and Opportunity Zone status. These programs reflect the community’s commitment to revitalization while preserving affordability. The project addresses the urgent need for affordable housing as market-rate development accelerates, threatening to displace low- and moderate-income families. By activating previously vacant land, the development creates much-needed homes while also improving neighborhood safety and property values.

The development is named in honor of Abigail Pankey who was a leader of the Mantua Housing Committee and co-founder of the Philadelphia Anti-Poverty Coalition (Women's Community Revitalization Project, Abigail Pankey Apartments announcement, March 2026). She understood housing not as an abstraction or a policy problem, but as the foundation of everything else a community needs: safety, stability, the ability to stay.

Integral also provided environmental consulting services to WCRP on this project. These services included Remedial Investigation Report and Cleanup Plan Addendum Preparation; Phase II investigations involving soil, groundwater, and vapor intrusion evaluations; underground storage tank removal efforts; preparation of a Soil Management Plan; oversight of smoke testing associated with vapor barrier installation; redevelopment oversight and consulting, and reporting under Pennsylvania’s Voluntary Cleanup Program in order to obtain a  site-specific release of liability associated with historical environmental impacts at the property. 

Nayda Cintron Apartments

Nayda Cintron Apartments is a 40-unit, new construction affordable housing community located in the Fairhill neighborhood of North Philadelphia. Being developed by WCRP on land donated by the City of Philadelphia, the project will span 0.97 acres across 11 parcels. It will consist of a three-story, 34-unit multifamily building and two three-story triplexes situated on separate parcels across Fairhill Street. The multifamily building includes 2 one-bedroom units, 23 two-bedroom units, and 9 three-bedroom units, while each triplex contains two bi-level three-bedroom units and one single-level ADA-accessible three-bedroom unit. In total, the development will offer 10 fully ADA-accessible units, 2 units designed for hearing or visual impairments, and 36 Visit Able units.

The $25.3 million development will transform multiple vacant and blighted parcels into high-quality, energy-efficient homes designed to meet Zero Energy Ready Homes standards and Enterprise Green Communities criteria. The site is within walking distance of schools, parks, libraries, recreation centers, and local employment opportunities, making it ideal for families. Larger unit sizes will address a critical shortage of affordable housing for bigger households, helping to combat overcrowding and substandard living conditions in the area. The design and site plan take advantage of by-right zoning, which expedites the development process and supports neighborhood revitalization. Environmentally sustainable materials, efficient systems, and thoughtful urban design will enhance both livability and long-term operational savings.

The development is named in honor of Nayda Cintron who is a prominent Puerto Rican activist and community organizer in Philadelphia, best known for her foundational work in the Norris Square neighborhood during the 1980’s during which she organized residents to challenge a system that split the Norris Square community across multiple council districts. She founded the Norris Square Civic Association (now known as Xiente), establishing a model for grassroots community control over housing, zoning, and safety. She also helped launch the American Street Business Corridor and introduced some of the city's first community gardens, land banks, and job training programs.

Integral has provided environmental consulting services to WCRP on this project. These services included a Phase I ESA; Phase II investigation involving soil and vapor intrusion evaluations; HUD-required evaluations including Noise Abatement and Control Analysis and Explosive and Flammable Facilities Analysis; and redevelopment oversight and consulting.

To learn more about WCRP, please visit www.wcrpphila.org

Integral Consulting, Inc. is a multidisciplinary environmental consulting firm that helps clients make informed, strategic, and compliant decisions on complex environmental and human health issues. The company brings together scientists, engineers, and regulatory specialists to deliver practical, technically rigorous solutions, emphasizing collaboration, clear communication, and results that balance scientific precision with real world feasibility.

https://www.integral-corp.com/about/

The Authors:

Mr. Claycomb has more than 38 years of experience as a geologist with engineering and environmental consulting firms. His work focuses on quality assurance oversight for environmental emergency response, as well as emergency response planning and preparedness documents related to sampling, analytical, and data management programs. He also provides technical support for environmental litigation, risk-based investigations and corrective actions, Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling Program (Act 2) and Management of Fill Policy, sediment and surface water quality investigations, quality assurance oversight for major surface water bodies, and environmental investigations involving vapor intrusion, subsurface soil and rock exploration, and groundwater contamination.

Mr. Kraycik is a professional geologist with 30 years of environmental consulting experience. He is an effective and successful manager who has been recognized with four prestigious brownfield redevelopment excellence awards for public and private projects in EPA Region 3. He has managed numerous EPA and state grants on behalf of clients throughout the northeast and mid-Atlantic with an emphasis on best practices for establishing sustainable assessment and redevelopment programs.

by James P. Cinelli, P.E., P.G., BCEE, Liberty Environmental

When designing sub-slab depressurization systems (SSDSs) for vapor intrusion mitigation, several key steps in the evaluation and design process are critical to avoid over- or under-designing the system. A few of these are outlined below.

Seal Off Entry Points

After confirming that vapor intrusion is a concern—and before beginning system design—identify and seal all potential vapor entry points, then retest indoor air. Eliminating preferential pathways may be sufficient to meet indoor air quality goals without additional mitigation.

If further mitigation is required, sealing entry points also helps prevent system failures caused by short-circuiting.

Perform Pressure Field Extension (PFE) Testing on Existing Buildings

In older buildings, the gravel layer beneath slabs and foundations may be thin or absent, limiting how far a vacuum can extend from a depressurization point.

Pressure Field Extension (PFE) testing—also known as communication testing—involves applying vacuums at varying strengths and locations to determine:

• the radius of influence, and
• the vacuum required for effective depressurization

Designers use these data to determine fan sizing and riser placement, making PFE testing a critical step in the design process.

Design New Buildings According to ANSI/AARST Standards

New construction typically includes a porous gravel layer (the “soil gas collection plenum”) beneath slabs and foundations. ANSI/AARST standards guide the design by specifying:

• appropriate gravel types (e.g., AASHTO #5, #7, #57),
• gravel thickness (e.g., 4", 6"), and
• pipe diameters (e.g., 3", 4", 6")

The number of extraction points (risers) is determined using standard guidelines based on floor area, rather than field testing. Factors influencing the number of risers include:

• Riser diameter
• Presence of a vapor barrier
• Thickness of the gas-permeable layer
• Ability to inspect the plenum

Inspect System Installation During Construction

ANSI/AARST standards allow for fewer extraction points when inspections are performed during installation of the soil gas collection plenum. This is because improper material selection or placement can significantly reduce system performance.

Additionally, foundation configurations often change during construction. For these reasons, frequent inspections during plenum installation and foundation work are strongly recommended.

Conclusion

Effective vapor intrusion mitigation depends on a thoughtful, data-driven approach that integrates site conditions, sound design principles, and careful construction oversight. By sealing entry points, conducting appropriate testing, adhering to established standards, and verifying installation quality, practitioners can develop systems that are both efficient and reliable. Taking these steps not only improves system performance but also reduces the risk of long-term operational issues, helping ensure that indoor air quality objectives are consistently achieved.

The Author:

James P. Cinelli is an environmental engineer and the president of Liberty Environmental, Inc., an environmental consulting firm which he co-founded in 2004. Mr. Cinelli has over 30 years of experience in environmental consulting with an emphasis in the areas of soil & groundwater remediation, brownfield redevelopment, and water resource engineering. He has provided expert witness testimony and has spoken at state and national conferences on topics such as stormwater management, erosion control, site remediation, and spill prevention.