[unable to retrieve full-text content]The post ITRC Publishes Soil Background In Risk Assessment Guidance appeared first on EHS Support.

By: Amy Trautman, ScientistPhoto: Robb McCormick Photography https://www.robbmccormick.comThe current ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-13) for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) was implemented in 2013. ASTM updates the standard every eight years; therefore, the 2021 revision is on the horizon. The revision process is extensive and includes input from numerous task groups and stakeholders. EHS Support has been following the proposed updates to prepare for the rollout of the new standard. While the revisions have yet to be finalized, some of the possible changes that may impact the due diligence and M&A process are outlined below:Revision Focus: Refine and ClarifyASTM has emphasized that the focus of the 2021 revision is to refine and clarify the key terms and processes in the E1527 standard. The goal is to continue standardizing the Phase I process, so that environmental professionals (EPs) approach each requirement in a similar way, and to improve the consistency and defensibility of Phase I reports. Some specific changes may include:Clarify definitions, such as “significant data gap” and “likely presence of contamination.”Provide guidance for classifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and de minimis The updated standard will likely include a decision tree and real-world examples.Refine historical research requirements, such as research on adjoining properties and reliability of historical resources.Add specificity around required report contents, such as site plans and photographs.TerminologySimilar to clarifying the definitions, ASTM has proposed increased consistency in E1527 standard terminology. This includes consistent use of the term “subject property” as opposed to other common substitutes, such as the term “target property.”Reproducible ResultsThe current standard requires that the EP make conclusions about the presence or potential presence of environmental impacts on the subject property. However, the standard is vague when it comes to the EP explaining how they reached their conclusion(s). The revised standard aims to require a step-by-step explanation around each conclusion, so that another EP or the report user can clearly understand the author’s logic and/or reproduce the author’s findings.Frequently Asked QuestionsHow will emerging contaminants be addressed in the 2021 standard?Emerging contaminants are a common area of concern, as a number of these have arisen in the years since the 2013 standard was published. In particular, many industry professionals are curious about how per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will be addressed in the 2021 standard. ASTM has stated that, because PFAS are not yet listed as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) hazardous substance, the new standard will not require evaluation of PFAS contamination. Instead, emerging contaminants will be addressed within the standard as a non-scope consideration. However, industry professionals should note that PFAS are likely to soon be regulated under CERCLA. Once they become regulated, they will fall under the E1527 tool as a hazardous substance. CERCLA hazardous substance regulations are enforced by the courts, and a substance that is not currently regulated but becomes regulated in the future will still fall under CERCLA cleanup requirements. In other words, a conservative approach that addresses potential contamination due to emerging contaminants is a safer bet for liability purposes.Do we anticipate any COVID-specific changes to the revised standard?Many EPs took creative approaches to satisfy the ASTM standard during COVID. One common point of stress was the site visit requirement, which became a challenge due to regional lockdowns and travel restrictions. However, ASTM does not anticipate any COVID-specific changes to the revised standard. Instead, ASTM notes that any changes or deviations to the standard requirements should simply be stated within the report. For example, if drones were used to conduct a portion of the site visit, the author should provide a statement to that effect within the report text.Emphasis: Litigation and Continuing ObligationsASTM has gathered input from a variety of EPs and industry players to develop the 2021 revisions. The objective of standardizing the Phase I process and clarifying the requirements is also to prevent litigation around Phase I ESAs. As such, EPs need to be thorough and gather all the correct information during the due diligence process, and the 2021 revisions will help to ensure they are covering all the bases. It should also be noted that litigation issues often arise around continuing obligations. After liability protection is obtained, there are often continuing obligations for the contaminated property. Doing the proper due diligence will help property owners prepare for and stay in compliance with continuing obligations.What’s Next?The final revisions are expected to be approved and rolled out by the end of 2021. Once the new standard has been finalized, you will be able to purchase a copy on the ASTM website.Adblock test (Why?)

AN ALTERNATE APPROACH TO SUPPORT PFAS RISK DECISION-MAKINGPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have created additional complexity in assessing risk in raw materials, finished products, and potable water. Unknowns associated with the complex toxicity, fate and transport, regulation, and risk decision-making related to PFAS create a foundation of unnecessarily conservative assumptions in the development of regulatory criteria. Typical methods to assign toxicity, such as extrapolation from one compound to another, additivity, toxicity equivalence factors, and relative potency factors, may be poor estimators of actual risk attributable to the presence of PFAS. The assumption that toxicity or potency is proportional to carbon chain length of the PFAS may also overestimate actual risk. Development of a relative risk model as an alternate approach to support risk decision-making, protective of human health and the environment from actual risk due to the presence of PFAS, is essential in site management and sound business decision-making.Relative Risk ModelEHS Support’s relative risk model takes a number of parameters into account through a stepwise, iterative process. In addition to considering compound-specific characteristics such as persistence, mobility, and toxicity, our model also incorporates site-specific information and uncertainties to develop a site-specific, relative risk ranking for detected PFAS. This ranking provides a basis for alternative strategies that are focused on more realistic site- and compound-specific risk, particularly in the absence of regulatory criteria.Our relative risk model uses a tiered, screening assessment framework based on those used for the assessment of chemical contaminants in traditional risk assessment, conducted under current regulatory programs such as Superfund and RCRA. The goal of this model is to categorize or assign PFAS into low-, medium-, and high-risk tiers based on their relative risk. Parameters include chemical classification, human and ecological toxicity, environmental persistence and occurrence, bioaccumulation/biomagnification, and information based on a site-specific, conceptual site model. The framework also incorporates an uncertainty analysis to assess the impact of different sources of uncertainty for a specific dataset. Lacking criteria and toxicity data for most PFAS, regulators are particularly conservative in their analysis of site-specific data. In some cases, a detection of PFAS, even well below any regulatory or health-based standards, may lead regulators to require more sampling. Our model helps the site owner and regulator understand the potential for exposure and provides context for the risk attributable to PFAS detections. This context in turn provides a science-based rationale against ongoing collection of data with no viable data quality objective.Benefits and Uses of the ModelEHS Support has validated the model and approach for a range of site-specific groundwater data sets to demonstrate feasibility and flexibility of this evaluation. It can be used in site rankings, risk communication, risk management, financial reserve assessments, and potentially responsible party (PRP) cost allocation, as well as in regulatory program negotiation and assessment.A groundwater detection at a site that has never used PFAS and has no reason to believe the site is a source can result in long-term, costly monitoring with no exit strategy. Even where it is determined that the site is not a source after multiple rounds of sampling, the lack of regulatory limits and relevant toxicity data for all congeners can result in continued requirement by the regulatory agency to perform time-consuming and expensive sample collection. EHS Support’s relative risk model allows for a relative comparison that provides data-based definition of actual versus perceived risk to satisfy both the regulator and site owner.Additional applications of the model include:Determining whether PFAS concentrations, or which PFAS at the site pose a threatAssessing or identifying the PFAS of greatest potential concern for a datasetProviding context for PFAS with uncertain toxicityProviding the basis for an exit strategy to avoid continued monitoringAssessing PFAS with no criteriaAssessing criteria relevance and/or sensitivityDifferentiating real versus perceived riskPutting risk in context to avoid an expansive sampling programServing as a mechanism to explain/discuss uncertainty with regulators during on-going criteria developmentNext StepsAs the development of state and federal criteria continues, EHS Support’s relative risk model provides a defensible, science-based alternative validation tool. In addition, we are currently in the process of further developing the fundamental framework to include other environmental media, such as soils and biota.A sound, science-based strategy to assess PFAS is key to distinguishing true risk from potential risk and the potential impact to your bottom line.EHS Support has a reputation for developing innovative approaches for client advocacy and offers a wide range of services to support your PFAS challenges in the changing regulatory landscape. Our relative risk model is just one of several science-based tools we have developed to support our clients in response to regulatory requests associated with PFAS at their sites.Link to Printable BrochureEHS Support delivers multi-disciplined services that provide our clients with realistic and innovative solutions. To discuss your PFAS-related site issues contact:Ceil ManciniDana McCueAdblock test (Why?)

On January 15, 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for industrial stormwater discharges. The MSGP became effective on March 1, 2021.Background:The USEPA established National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for industrial stormwater discharges in 1990; the agency first issued the MSGP for applicable facilities in 1995. The new MSGP requirements replaced the 2015 requirements on March 1, 2021.The MSGP applies to facilities in areas of the country where USEPA is the NPDES permitting authority. This includes facilities in the following areas:Four states: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and IdahoThe District of ColumbiaAll U.S. territories except for the Virgin IslandsFederally operated facilities in Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and WashingtonMost Indian country landsOther designated activities in specific statesWhile the MSGP is limited to these areas initially, many states are adopting significant elements of the MSGP as their individual state general permits get renewed.From March 2, 2020, to June 1, USEPA offered a 90-day comment period for the proposed changes to the MSGP. During this same period, a total of 195 total comment letters and 1,895 unique comments were received and considered in the development of the new MSGP. The significant changes that were made to the 2021 MSGP process are highlighted below.Significant General Changes in the 2021 MSGPThe following list summarizes the most significant changes to the 2021 MSGP:Streamlining of Permit: USEPA streamlined and simplified language throughout the permit to present the requirements in a more clear and readable manner.Public Sign of Permit Coverage: This requires MSGP operators to post a sign of permit coverage at a safe, publicly accessible location near the facility.Consideration of Stormwater Control Measure Enhancements for Major Storm Events: This requires that operators consider implementing enhanced stormwater control measures for facilities that could be impacted by major storm events, such as hurricanes, storm surge, and flood events.Monitoring ChangesIndicator Monitoring for pH, TSS, and COD: A new provision requires operators to conduct indicator analytical monitoring of stormwater discharged to a water body for pH, total suspended solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) quarterly for the duration of the permit. This requirement applies to all operators in the following subsectors that do not have sector-specific benchmark monitoring requirements in the 2021 MSGP: B2, C5, D2, E3, F5, I1, J3, L2, N2, O1, P1, R1, T1, U3, V1, W1, X1, Y2, Z1, AB, AC, and AD. This monitoring requirement applies to Subsector F5 of the Primary Metals Sector (Sector F).Indicator Monitoring for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): This new provision requires certain operations to conduct “report-only” indicator analytical monitoring for PAHs bi-annually during the first and fourth years of permit coverage. This applies to operators in all sectors with stormwater discharges from paved surfaces that will be sealed or re-sealed with coal-tar sealcoat, operators in sectors A, C, D, F, H, I, M, O, P, Q, R and S. This requirement includes the Primary Metals Sector (Sector F).Updating Benchmark Threshold Values: The benchmark monitoring thresholds for aluminum, copper for discharges to freshwater, selenium for discharges to freshwater, and cadmium is based on revised current Clean Water Act section 304(a) national recommended aquatic life water quality criteria. Additionally, the benchmark monitoring thresholds for magnesium and iron were suspended because of a lack of documented acute toxicity.Updating the Benchmark Monitoring Schedule: This requires that applicable operators conduct benchmark monitoring quarterly in their first and fourth years of permit coverage.Impaired Waters Monitoring: Operators discharging to impaired waters without an USEPA-approved or -established total maximum daily load (TMDL) must complete annual monitoring for discharges of certain pollutants to impaired waters. Monitoring is required for one year at each discharge point for all pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired, after which the operator can discontinue monitoring for the next two years for any pollutant that is not detected.Additional Implementation Measures (AIM): USEPA revised these AIM provisions to address concerns raised in public comments during the 2020 review period. The final MSGP requirements now provide a three-level structure of advancement and responses triggered by benchmark exceedances. The updated AIMs reduce costs and complexity by creating a stepwise, sequential advancement through the AIM levels with a clear “resetting” to baseline status if benchmark thresholds and responses are met within the required deadlines.2021 MSGP Changes Impacting the Primary Metals SectorSector F – Primary Metals of the 2021 MSGP covers steel works, blast furnaces, rolling and finishing mills, iron and steel foundries, nonferrous metals, nonferrous foundries, primary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals, and miscellaneous primary metal products. Sector-specific requirements for the Primary Metals Sector are provided in Part 8, Subpart F of the 2021 MSGP. Key changes to the MSGP impacting the Primary Metals Sector are outlined below.Stormwater Control Measures for Major Storm Events: The requirement to implement enhanced stormwater controls for major storm events has been removed. The 2021 MSGP requirements allow facilities to consider implementing enhanced control measures for facilities that could be affected by major storm events, such as hurricanes, storm surge, and flood events. USEPA is not requiring operators to implement additional controls if the operator determines such controls to be unnecessary, but USEPA is requiring operators to consider the benefits of selecting and designing control measures that reduce risks to their industrial facility and the potential impact of pollutants in stormwater discharges caused by major storm events.Removal of Universal Benchmark Monitoring for pH, TSS, and COD: The requirement for universal benchmark monitoring for pH, TSS, and COD in the Primary Metals Sector has been removed. Instead, there will be non-benchmark (indicator) monitoring of those parameters required only for those subsectors that currently have no sector-specific benchmark monitoring requirements. Benchmark monitoring for pH, TSS and COD is required under Subsector F5 (Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals).Indicator Monitoring: Indicator monitoring for PAHs is required for all Primary Metals Sector (Sector F) facilities. Additionally, indicator monitoring for COD, TSS and pH is required for Subsector F5. PAH indicator monitoring includes the 16 individual PAHs identified at Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 423. The indictor monitoring is a “report-only” requirement. No thresholds or baseline values were established for these parameters.Modification of Copper Benchmarks: Benchmark monitoring for copper is required under the Primary Metals Subsectors F2, F3, and F4. The updated total recoverable copper benchmark for discharges to freshwater to 5.19 µg/L. The copper benchmark for discharges to freshwater were previously hardness-dependent.Modification of Aluminum Benchmarks: Benchmark monitoring for aluminum is required under the Primary Metals Subsectors F1 and F2 for discharges to freshwater. The updated benchmark for total recoverable aluminum was increased from 750 µg/L to 1,100 µg/L.Modification of AIM Requirements: The modification of the AIM requirements addresses some concerns posed during the comment period, by ensuring that a discharger has the opportunity to take compliance steps at one AIM level before being moved to the next level. All operators subject to benchmark monitoring requirements begin in the baseline status at the start of their permit coverage. An operator would progress linearly through the three AIM levels (AIM Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) if an exceedance-triggering event occurs and continues. The operator is required to respond with increasingly robust control measures and continued benchmark monitoring with each subsequent AIM level. The following exceptions to the AIM requirements are offered in the 2021 MSGP for an exceedance-triggering event at any AIM Level:Natural background sourcesRun-onA one-time abnormal eventA demonstration that discharges of copper and aluminum do not result in an exceedance of facility-specific criteria using the national recommended water-quality criteria in-lieu of the applicable MSGP benchmark thresholdA demonstration that the benchmark exceedance does not result in any exceedance of an applicable water-quality standardCoal Tar Sealants: The restrictions on permit eligibility if a facility uses coal-tar sealants have been removed. The indicator monitoring requirements for PAHs apply to all facilities in the Primary Metals Sector with stormwater discharges from paved surfaces sealed or re-sealed with coal-tar sealcoat, or that use or store creosote or creosote-treated wood in areas exposed to precipitation. The indictor monitoring is a “report-only” requirement in the first and fourth years of permit coverage. No thresholds or baseline values were established for these parameters.What’s Next?EHS Support anticipates as State NPDES permitting authorities’ MSGPs expire and require updating, the State agencies will update their respective MSGP permits to be in accordance with the USEPA’s 2021 MSGP. EHS Support recommends facilities in the Primary Metals Sector prepare for permit updates by reviewing their stormwater program, monitoring results and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans to ensure that facilities have developed proactive stormwater management programs to comply with increasingly demanding stormwater permitting requirements.Learn More:Our team of compliance experts can assist you with preparing your facility for the updates in the 2021 MSGP and can answer any questions you may have about this update. Please reach out to Brianna Sadoski for:Questions related to changes to the 2021 MSGPCompliance concerns with the 2021 MSGPAssistance navigating new AIM RequirementsAny other MSGP related questions!Adblock test (Why?)

By: Bob Pickert, Senior Compliance SpecialistEnvironmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) is a lens through which private equity companies can identify and develop hidden value. This article explores ESG and considers some tools to simplify and manage the ESG journey through the merger & acquisition (M&A) process of acquisition strategy and planning, due diligence, and integration and development. Along the way, we will examine a metric – ESG Maturity – that measures how well an organization manages ESG risks and opportunities by integrating ESG into its business strategy.Do you know where your organization stands on the ESG Maturity scale?Figure 1               ESG Maturity ScaleWhat is ESG?ESG issues are increasingly important to an expanding universe of stakeholders with changing expectations, including general partners (GPs), limited partners (LPs), and other lenders and investors. ESG issues are symptoms of inefficiency and inequity. These unsustainable imbalances represent a risk, but they also create opportunity. There is a growing awareness that there is an economic gradient toward a more efficient and equitable world. It is enlightened self-interest that public and private organizations understand their stakeholders’ expectations for a clearer view of their business-related risks and opportunities. Traveling the path to ESG success is an active, iterative, and creative process that takes place over time. More than just a consideration at due diligence, ESG can be built into the Private Equity firm’s existing strategy and planning process, M&A criteria and toolkit, and integration and development approach.The ESG timeline is both generational and urgent. Sustainable development was first defined in the 1987 Brundtland Commission report – Our Common Future – as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The awareness grew that organizations had a “triple bottom line” that included environmental and social obligations as well as its fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders. At the same time, a variety of reporting standards and initiatives around corporate social responsibility; environmental, health, and safety management systems; and global sustainable development goals emerged and grew. Around that time the concept of socially responsible investing joined the lexicon as some investors recognized that efficiently run companies were more profitable than their less efficient competitors, and cleaner technologies did not have the compliance and legacy burdens of legacy technologies. They saw hidden value in more sustainable business models. That thinking has accelerated.Climate Change Takes Center StageThe COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many trends. Among them is the need to face existential risks, including climate change.While not everyone agrees on the details, governments and organizations around the world are already committing to carbon-neutrality to avoid the most extreme impacts from climate change. This transition is likely to completely transform the entire economy creating disruption, risk, and opportunity. The adage that “necessity is the mother of invention” acknowledges that need drives innovation. The need for a more efficient and equitable world will help drive a new wave of innovation affecting all sectors of the economy, but especially energy, transportation, resource management, and industrial productivity.There are current and emerging requirements to disclose material financial risks to investors including United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements to report material financial risks, and the European Union (EU) Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) and related “green taxonomy” requirements that codify the relative sustainability of various business activities. While many of these requirements do not apply directly to private equity, they are influencing the expectations of financial stakeholders and creating de-facto requirements and voluntary guidelines for Private Equity firms. As the transition to a carbon-neutral economy gains traction, non-regulatory pressure from investors – inspired by the recommendations from the multi-national Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) – is driving organizations to understand and report on climate-related risks and opportunities, resilience, and risk management processes.Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon StrategiesClimate change risk assessments include the use of models and datasets to understand an organization’s exposure to extreme events such as coastal and inland flooding, extreme heat or precipitation, wildfires, landslides, drought, and water scarcity. A risk assessment reviews the impacts from acute risks (extreme weather events) and chronic risks (e.g., drought and water scarcity), as well as impact chains (such as secondary risks, e.g., socioeconomic effects like migration, conflict, and public health shocks). The United Nations Financial Initiative published a review of climate change risk assessment tools and data sources.2 Industry standards such as ISO 14091 Adaptation to Climate Change – Guidelines on Vulnerability, Impacts and Risk Assessment can help ensure assessments are conducted in accordance with standard practices and are consistent and transparent.Many organizations have taken steps to inventory their carbon footprint. Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions include emissions from combustion of fossil fuels on-site and fleet fuel consumption (defined as Scope 1 emissions), indirect emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, heat, or steam from a utility provider (Scope 2 emissions), and indirect emissions associated with upstream sources from suppliers and downstream emissions from the distribution, use, and disposal of products (Scope 3 emissions).Energy audits can help organizations identify easy changes to improve their carbon footprint and cost-effective carbon strategies. Energy audits are an important part of developing carbon management strategies to blunt the impact of emerging carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, and restrictions on carbon offsets circulating in Washington D.C. Many companies, including big technology firms, are purchasing renewable energy credits to offset their carbon footprints. Organizations need to assess and understand their climate-related risks and opportunities, and develop adaptation, mitigation, and business strategies to manage those risks and embrace future market opportunities.Environmental Footprint – Social Handprint Of course, there is more to ESG and sustainability than climate change. Regulators and stakeholders are demanding that organizations report on their environmental footprint – including the transition to a circular economy that uses renewable and recyclable products, materials conservation, pollution prevention, the protection and restoration of water and marine resources, biodiversity, and ecosystems.Stakeholders are recognizing that sustainability has social elements including employee diversity, health & safety; human rights, community relations, customer privacy and data security; and green marketing of products and services. Issues like diversity and inclusion are not necessarily altruistic, but they provide a 360-degree view of perspectives that help organizations recognize and manage risks and embrace opportunities. Issues like diversity and inclusion are not necessarily altruistic, but they provide a 360-degree view of perspectives that help organizations recognize and manage risks and embrace opportunities.Organizations recognize their governance or internal controls over ESG elements are under the constant watchful eye of social media and are taking proactive steps to ensure they optimize the impacts of their environmental footprint, social handprint, and their control or influence over their supply chain, products, and services. There are a variety of ways to engage suppliers on ESG, including communicating your organization’s code of conduct, screening suppliers for high risk to drive corrective action, or identifying high ESG performance for collaboration. Supplier ESG risk screening, surveys, or questionnaires can help focus this effort.Standards for assessing and reporting an organization’s sustainability performance are published by organizations such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (https://www.globalreporting.org), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) (www.sasb.org), and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (https://sdgs.un.org/goals). They all provide standards and criteria to help organizations plan and manage their ESG programs. One of the important contributions of the SASB has been the development and publication of a sustainable industry classification system (SICS) across 11 industrial sectors and “materiality maps” that highlight priority issues, standards, and metrics for each of the 77 industries. These materiality maps help organizations prioritize the ESG issues that are most relevant for them and over which they have some influence or control. SASB materiality maps are a good place to start when comparing or benchmarking ESG programs. Another good source of inspiration for ESG programs is to see what your competition or other organizations are considered best-in-class for a particular industry. The SDGs provide a useful guide for aligning an organization’s ESG goals with global priorities. Proactive organizations are increasingly aligning their reporting on sustainability programs with these standards. Along the way, organizations need ESG data management solutions to organize, store, and report ESG data and information to stakeholders.ESG Maturity – A Metric Whose Time Has ComeOrganizations need a system and tools for prioritizing, managing, and comparing their ESG programs, and managing ESG data. Enter the ESG Scorecard. Often based on the standards referenced above or on proprietary ESG criteria, or a combination of the two, ESG Scorecards are a useful way to simplify, focus, measure, monitor, compare, and communicate ESG programs.The process of assessing the maturity of an organization’s ESG program begins with an understanding of the organization or project under review including the context, scope, and organizational profile. Existing and available information and reports on the organization or project’s ESG programs (such as existing ESG, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and environmental health and safety reports issued by the organization) can help provide these general disclosures. Benchmarks such as the SASB materiality maps and comparisons to competitors, best-in-class, or analogous businesses can provide useful information and perspective. An assessment of an organization’s ESG programs might include interviewing executives with responsibility, authority, and/or direct knowledge of ESG management systems, as well as physical site visits or reconnaissance.The assessment of ESG maturity often includes reviewing the following:ESG management approach (e.g., policies, planning, and commitments)Program deployment (e.g., procedures, operational controls, and verification audits)Results achieved (e.g., metrics, monitoring, and management reviews)Implementing ESG programs ensures they are part of the organization’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances, identify risks and opportunities, and drive ESG performance improvement. It is important to have objective scoring criteria to prepare consistent and comparable ESG scores that can be monitored over time for improvement. Managing ESG issues is an active, iterative, and creative process. Scores can be developed for relevant ESG exposure risks, the organization’s ESG maturity/ability to manage ESG exposure risks and identify and take advantage of ESG opportunities, and the resulting adjusted or net risks to identify unmanaged risks. For example, an organization might want to conduct a baseline assessment of its ESG Maturity or ESG net score to compare against a potential acquisition to see how the acquisition would impact its ESG score or programs (see Figure 2).Figure 2 – ESG Benchmark ComparisonOver time, an organization may pass through stages where it complies with regulatory and ESG-related requirements, sets and achieves ESG performance improvement goals, and integrates ESG into its business strategy. ESG starts with taking the first step and requires a deliberate, focused, and sustained effort. If focused deliberately and systematically, ESG criteria can offer GPs and LPs a competitive advantage in acquisition strategy and planning, due diligence, and integration and corporate development to identify blind spots, business development opportunities, and develop hidden value across the portfolio. A simple metric – ESG Maturity – can help an organization understand where it is on the ESG Maturity Scale and how well it is positioned to minimize risks and take advantage of opportunities.1 Private Equity Ties Pay to Social Goals, Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2021, B11.2 Charting a New Climate: State-of-the-Art tools and data for banks to assess credit risks and opportunities from physical climate change impacts. UNEP Finance Initiative. September 2020.Adblock test (Why?)

By: Ceil Mancini, Senior ScientistRegulatory uncertainties surrounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has made decision-making associated with mergers, acquisitions, and other business ventures more complex. If PFAS are present, the cost/benefit of the transaction could be negatively impacted. On the other hand, ‘waiting it out’ could take years, resulting in profitable but missed business opportunities.Despite these uncertainties, and in the framework of the post-pandemic surge in industrial mergers and acquisitions, EHS Support is seeing an increased number of client requests to help assess potential liabilities and costs due to the possible presence of PFAS compounds at their sites and in their product lines or manufacturing processes, for both legacy sites and current operations. These assessments are triggered during mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, insurance policy renewals, and a variety of other business transactions. Owners and potential investors need to be informed and armed with enough accurate information to make profitable business decisions in a changing, science-based, regulatory climate.Systematic consideration of relevant, site-specific information in the context of the local and regional regulatory framework, as well as a corporation’s specific goals and time lines, is essential to the decision process. The following is a summary of an iterative decision model developed by EHS Support:Threshold Analysis. An initial review provides an understanding of whether the site is on a target list based on the manufacture or associated operations incorporating PFAS. The results of this analysis can influence the trajectory of regulatory interactions.Current Operations. An assessment of current operations and incorporation of existing information may demonstrate that there are no current operational sources of PFAS. This process includes some obvious source questions such as the presence of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) or fire systems, or supply chain materials that include PFAS. A well-documented site with no history may demonstrate a lack of PFAS concerns.Historical Operations. An assessment of historical operations is similar to the assessment of current operations but addresses historical site activities and the potential for legacy contamination.Off-site Supplemental Assessment. The supplemental assessment considers potential off-site sources that may impact/confuse the determination. It considers data availability and the local regulatory climate. Coupled with the results of the operational assessments above, the outcome of this assessment may result in a redirection of business strategies.Uncertainty. Understanding the sources of uncertainty in the process provides insight on how they may influence the conclusions and the financial bottom line of the transaction, or in the case of an acquisition, whether or not it should proceed.While concerns and uncertainties over ‘forever chemicals’ have clouded business decisions, systematic assessment based on good data may reveal opportunities. EHS Support’s PFAS technical team, with input from our regulatory compliance, due diligence, and auditing experts, have developed this screening model to inform our clients of their potential PFAS-related environmental liabilities. This systematic tool can be applied to a single site or a multi-site portfolio to determine the likelihood of PFAS being present. This critical information provides a foundation for informed business decisions and positive impacts on your bottom line.Questions surrounding PFAS?  Please contact Ceil ManciniAdblock test (Why?)

By: Amy Trautman, ScientistThe current ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-13) for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) was implemented in 2013. ASTM updates the standard every eight years; therefore, the 2021 revision is on the horizon. The revision process is extensive and includes input from numerous task groups and stakeholders. EHS Support has been following the proposed updates to prepare for the rollout of the new standard. While the revisions have yet to be finalized, some of the possible changes that may impact the due diligence and M&A process are outlined below:Revision Focus: Refine and ClarifyASTM has emphasized that the focus of the 2021 revision is to refine and clarify the key terms and processes in the E1527 standard. The goal is to continue standardizing the Phase I process, so that environmental professionals (EPs) approach each requirement in a similar way, and to improve the consistency and defensibility of Phase I reports. Some specific changes may include:Clarify definitions, such as “significant data gap” and “likely presence of contamination.”Provide guidance for classifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and de minimis The updated standard will likely include a decision tree and real-world examples.Refine historical research requirements, such as research on adjoining properties and reliability of historical resources.Add specificity around required report contents, such as site plans and photographs.TerminologySimilar to clarifying the definitions, ASTM has proposed increased consistency in E1527 standard terminology. This includes consistent use of the term “subject property” as opposed to other common substitutes, such as the term “target property.”Reproducible ResultsThe current standard requires that the EP make conclusions about the presence or potential presence of environmental impacts on the subject property. However, the standard is vague when it comes to the EP explaining how they reached their conclusion(s). The revised standard aims to require a step-by-step explanation around each conclusion, so that another EP or the report user can clearly understand the author’s logic and/or reproduce the author’s findings.Frequently Asked QuestionsHow will emerging contaminants be addressed in the 2021 standard?Emerging contaminants are a common area of concern, as a number of these have arisen in the years since the 2013 standard was published. In particular, many industry professionals are curious about how per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will be addressed in the 2021 standard. ASTM has stated that, because PFAS are not yet listed as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) hazardous substance, the new standard will not require evaluation of PFAS contamination. Instead, emerging contaminants will be addressed within the standard as a non-scope consideration. However, industry professionals should note that PFAS are likely to soon be regulated under CERCLA. Once they become regulated, they will fall under the E1527 tool as a hazardous substance. CERCLA hazardous substance regulations are enforced by the courts, and a substance that is not currently regulated but becomes regulated in the future will still fall under CERCLA cleanup requirements. In other words, a conservative approach that addresses potential contamination due to emerging contaminants is a safer bet for liability purposes.Do we anticipate any COVID-specific changes to the revised standard?Many EPs took creative approaches to satisfy the ASTM standard during COVID. One common point of stress was the site visit requirement, which became a challenge due to regional lockdowns and travel restrictions. However, ASTM does not anticipate any COVID-specific changes to the revised standard. Instead, ASTM notes that any changes or deviations to the standard requirements should simply be stated within the report. For example, if drones were used to conduct a portion of the site visit, the author should provide a statement to that effect within the report text.Emphasis: Litigation and Continuing ObligationsASTM has gathered input from a variety of EPs and industry players to develop the 2021 revisions. The objective of standardizing the Phase I process and clarifying the requirements is also to prevent litigation around Phase I ESAs. As such, EPs need to be thorough and gather all the correct information during the due diligence process, and the 2021 revisions will help to ensure they are covering all the bases. It should also be noted that litigation issues often arise around continuing obligations. After liability protection is obtained, there are often continuing obligations for the contaminated property. Doing the proper due diligence will help property owners prepare for and stay in compliance with continuing obligations.What’s Next?The final revisions are expected to be approved and rolled out by the end of 2021. Once the new standard has been finalized, you will be able to purchase a copy on the ASTM website.QUESTIONS?If you would like to know how these updates may impact your organization, please contact Amy Trautman or Bruce Martin.Adblock test (Why?)

EHS Support is pleased to announce that we have been named to the list of 2021 Best Firms to Work For by the Zweig Group. The program honors outstanding workplaces in the AEC industry (i.e., architecture, engineering, environmental, planning, and construction). The honorees are chosen based on management and staff perspectives on the company’s culture, workplace practices, employee benefits, employee retention rates, and professional development.EHS Support was ranked #2 in the Environmental Services category and #14 in the 50-99 Employees category1.The firm was founded with a vision to provide a rewarding place to work and a culture unlike any other consultancy. Today, EHS Support has over 130 employees located throughout the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. As a 100% virtual firm, EHS Support provides an exceptional work environment that rewards and fosters employee ideas and contributions.According to Bethany Evans, Chief Performance Officer, “This achievement validates that focusing on employees, and providing a path to a rewarding and fun career is possible and successful. As we continue to recruit the best in the business, this award will serve as a constant reminder of our ongoing commitment to our clients, current employees, and future employees.”Who We AreEHS Support is a global family of scientists, engineers, geologists, and technical experts who specialize in complex environmental, health, and safety (EH&S) challenges across industries and markets. We’ve successfully completed projects in over 100 countries, including water resource and remediation management, compliance and permitting, health and safety, and acquisitions and divestitures. We’re problem solvers and we’re passionate about what we do!1 Per survey rules, only U.S.-based employees were included in the survey.Interested in joining this award-winning team? Visit our list of open positions.Adblock test (Why?)

As part of EHS Support’s ongoing involvement with the aluminum, chemical, pharmaceutical, and smelting industries, we have initiated a major study of the controls on fate and transport of fluoride in surface water, soil, and groundwater.The study will evaluate the breadth of existing information on fluoride mobility in the environment and identify where data gaps and uncertainties exist. The outcome will provide a contemporary framework to guide approaches for assessing and mitigating fluoride mobility in environmental media. The results of this study will be relevant to the 500+ industries that discharge fluoride effluent and are currently regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).The impetus of this study is to overcome common myths about fluoride geochemistry that inform waste management and remediation decision making. This work is a companion study to work already completed by EHS Support on fluoride toxicity, making EHS Support the go-to source for fluoride fate, transport, and attenuation.To Learn MoreFor additional details on this project and EHS Support’s experience with fluoride fate, transport, and ecological risk assessments, please contact our team of experts:Andrew Fowler, Ph.D.Nigel GouldingSamuel Parker, Ph.D.Tom SilvermanRebecca Fraser, Ph.D.Adblock test (Why?)

On May 17, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) adopted the proposed rules and amendments to the N.J.A.C. 7:26D Remediation Standards originally published on April 6, 2020. NJDEP reassessed each constituent using updated toxicity factors, exposure assumptions, and chemical and physical factors. As a result, there are multiple changes in the remediation standards that will impact current, future, and closed remediation sites. NJDEP also added remediation standards for several new contaminants and removed certain contaminants from the regulations. The phase-in period for the updated rules is six months from May 17, 2021.Highlights of the NJDEP Remediation Standard UpdatesNJDEP made the following changes:Direct contact soil remediation standards have been replaced with separate standards for the ingestion-dermal and inhalation exposure pathways.Default impacts to groundwater soil screening levels have been replaced with enforceable soil and leachate remediation standards for the migration to groundwater exposure pathway.Indoor air screening levels have been replaced with enforceable indoor air remediation standards.Additional constituents have been added with new standards. Additionally, standards for many constituents increased, decreased, or were removed.What’s NextThe phase-in period of six months does not apply to all cases. Parties that submitted a remedial action work plan or remedial action report before the phase-in deadline (November 17, 2021) can remediate their site using the existing remediation standards as long as the remediation standard for their contaminant(s) did not increase by an order of magnitude or more. If the standards did increase by an order of magnitude or more, then the new standards must be followed, and the phase-in period does not apply.Potential ImpactsCurrent, future, and even closed remediation cases may be impacted by the changes to N.J.A.C. 7:26D.Sites that are currently in the remedial action phase may be able to expedite the remediation process by taking advantage of the phase-in period if the remediation standards for the contaminants increased by less than an order of magnitude.Sites that are currently in the investigation phase should evaluate whether the change in standards requires modifying the investigation or remedial approach for the site.Sites that have been closed should review the order of magnitude decrease in the standards to see if additional work is needed (e.g., during biennial certification or when an industrial property is sold).Sites that have ongoing vapor intrusion or monitoring should re-evaluate their vapor intrusion program; a decrease in the standards may trigger the need for vapor intrusion pathway mitigation.A detailed summary of the adoption and the full amended rule are available on NJDEP’s Site Remediation and Waste Management Program (SRWMP) Remediation Standards webpage https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/rs/Learn More EHS Support’s remediation experts can answer any questions you may have about these recent updates. Please contact Tom Silverman or Elena Dadukova.Adblock test (Why?)