The Future for Solar is Bright

Posted on May 6, 2025

The Future for Solar is Bright

Author: Tony Giunta, Director of Project Development

Benjamin Franklin once said, “There are only two things certain in life: death and taxes.” While I’m not here to challenge old Ben, I’ve lived long enough to confidently add one more certainty to his list: “There are only three things certain in life: death, taxes, and the sun will rise tomorrow.” With that third certainty comes the opportunity to harness a free source of energy to power our homes, businesses, and planet.

Although the ability to consistently capture an unlimited free power source sounds like a “no-lose” business proposition, the solar industry has always faced stiff headwinds. Its most formidable challenge has been to lower the cost of converting that free energy into a usable form that is competitive with fossil-fueled sources (brown power). This challenge is compounded by the need to navigate the continuously shifting support for politically imposed subsidies designed to “level the playing field” between the comparatively higher cost of green solar and cheaper brown power.

So, knowing that cost is the pivotal factor, can the solar industry ever achieve price equity with brown power? I believe the answer is a resounding yes!

As is typically the case, technology is revolutionizing the solar industry (I’m sure Ben Franklin would appreciate my choice of words here!). Solar photovoltaic panels are becoming more efficient at lower production costs. Five years ago, it cost nearly $4 per watt to produce solar power. Two years ago, that cost was halved to $2 per watt, and today it has halved again to just under $1 per watt.

In terms of cost per kilowatt-hour, ten years ago when Nobis started working with solar developers, the price needed to support a solar project was in the 12-15 cent per kilowatt-hour range compared to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for brown power. Today, solar developers are building projects with a sale price of 8-10 cents per kilowatt-hour. As you can see (and what should be music to everyone’s ears), solar power is rapidly closing the price gap with its archrival, brown power.

The rapidly falling price of solar really “kills two birds with one stone.” As the price gap narrows, consumers generally choose greener resources. And with that all-important consumer choice, the need for unpredictable and controversial subsidies evaporates. Case in point: solar power is the leading source of renewable power installation in the nation. In 2023, the solar industry set a record by installing 32 gigawatts of solar energy. In 2024, that record was shattered with over 50 gigawatts of US solar installations. Considering each solar gigawatt of power is like building a nuclear-powered facility, the 2023 and 2024 solar installations are equivalent to having built nearly 75 new nuclear power plants, with the added benefit of not having to worry about nuclear waste.

Thanks to advanced technologies, lower equipment costs, and a diminishing reliance on subsidies, the future of solar looks bright (pun intended)!

-->

Achieving Greater Sustainability by Adopting More Energy-Efficient Cycles

Posted on September 12, 2024

Achieving Greater Sustainability by Adopting More Energy-Efficient Cycles

By Tony Giunta, Director of Project Development, The Nobis Group

It’s only natural to assume that humans would consume the earth’s natural resources in a sustainable manner. After all, if we fail to live sustainably our species will perish. New Englanders have long understood and practiced this.

In fact, New Englanders have for a long time inherited a reputation of being a very “frugal” bunch. Having been born and raised in this part of the country, I can attest to the fact that we “Yankees” can always find a way to stretch life’s necessities. I truly believe this comes from our early European settler history where one either learned how to sustain food, water, shelter, and even energy – or you didn’t survive the winter! Death, it appears, was an effective incentive for ingenuity when it came to preserving and sustaining resources.

Today, technology provides us with a near inexhaustible supply of life sustaining commodities. So much so, that we no longer give thought during our daily life that wasting our natural resources could result in our demise. So how do we become more sustainable? One way is to consume resources as close to their source location as possible. Although a simple, reasonable, and completely achievable concept, this solution is grossly ignored around the world.

As silly as it may seem, it’s commonplace for raw materials to be shipped thousands of miles only to see manufactured products made from these resources shipped right back to their original points of origin. As a result, enormous amounts of our limited energy supplies are consumed during transit alone.

One example close to home is liquified natural gas (LNG). Because of constrained pipeline capacity during times of heavy consumption, Boston receives LNG shipments from Tobago and Trinidad. At the same time, shipments of the same product are transported from Louisiana to Europe and Asia. The finite fossil fuel resources consumed to power those gigantic LNG transport ships only to deliver LNG are staggering. Enormous amounts of energy could be sustainably preserved if we globally prioritized utilizing energy sources and related raw materials based on their proximity to the user.

Our worldwide energy demands are continuing to rise and, ironically, adding to this is our commitment to build a new generation of renewable energy sources and networks globally. But we need to be just as committed to eliminating our wasteful energy practices at the same time.

At Nobis Group, we are committed to moving our world towards a more sustainable energy future. Over the past decade, remaining steadfast to this commitment has resulted in Nobis having permitted more solar projects than any other firm in New Hampshire. We strive to create a society more reliant on limitless energy supplies like solar and wind power and less reliant on finite energy sources such as crude oil, coal, and natural gas.

-->

No Final Whistle: How Lessons in Teamwork Translate into Environmental Field Work

Posted on July 18, 2024

No Final Whistle: How Lessons in Teamwork Translate into Environmental Field Work

Author: Stephanie Stone, Staff Scientist

“Herons on three!”, I shouted, almost definitively. It was the last time I would ever say those words, on that field, with the people that I’ve grown the closest to. The end to my field hockey career stung like a heartbreak. Hanging up my jersey marked the end of a chapter I never was quite fully prepared to finish. When you play a sport in college, it becomes your identity, one of your descriptors. Everyone knew me as the field hockey goalie. For over a decade, it consumed my life, and once the final whistle blew, I felt like I was losing a piece of myself.

Sports to Career

Collegiate athletics instilled in me a work ethic that I transitioned into my professional life. They taught me a lot about myself and how to collaborate with those with differing personalities than mine. I created friendships that will last a lifetime. We worked well together on the field, but that did not happen overnight. It took time for us to trust in each other’s abilities, to understand people’s strengths, and to lift them up in times of weakness. The team became a close-knit group that was hard to say goodbye to. I cherish the memories we made and when I look back on my experience, it’s not the wins and losses I remember most, it’s how being a part of that team shaped me into the person I am today.

Challenges in Environmental Field Work

Transitioning into environmental consulting and field work brought its own set of challenges. I promptly learned that field work is demanding – physically, mentally, and technically challenging too. It is a dynamic, fast paced environment where you must anticipate and solve problems on the fly. Much like in sports, success is based on effective teamwork. For these reasons and many others, the work is undoubtedly fulfilling. Environmental field work is by no means a one-person job, even on a seemingly small sampling event. As field staff, we are responsible for interpreting and communicating ever-changing site conditions to our project team members and other stakeholders effectively and frequently.

There is rarely a perfect site, but there are some that are far less than perfect. Your monitoring wells don’t recharge. There are unexpected snow squalls. The equipment you rented loses functionality. Or, most unfortunately, a combination of the three. During these hardships, it is teamwork that will make for a successful field assignment. As field staff, we should be able to lift each other up when challenging situations arise and work together to navigate issues that occur on our job sites. I vividly recall one particularly difficult site last fall in a remote location. Cell service was minimal and the time of year was unforgiving in terms of daylight. Hazardous materials added an extra layer of complexity, requiring constant attention to safety. Yet, through teamwork and resourcefulness, my team managed to surpass every obstacle.

Carrying Sports Values Forward

When I picked up my first field hockey stick, it did not occur to me that the decision would come to shape the rest of my life. We don’t join sports expecting it to land us a job in STEM, but they do instill values that translate in the workforce when it comes time to enter it. Sports change who we are as a person. They teach discipline and cultivate a passion, both favorable qualities to carry into field work. Most importantly, they teach us how to work with others and become valuable members of a team. Fostering a sports team culture in the field can introduce a supportive environment to get a difficult job done. My time as a technical staff member thus far has shown me that, while I hung up my field hockey jersey in 2022, I picked up a new one when I became an environmental staff scientist. I’ve been accepted into a new team, and while I’ve traded in my goalie helmet for a hard hat, I strive to foster the same values that have gotten me this far, just with a different goal. When we work as a team, we win! And for me, there is no final whistle.

-->

EPA’s Superfund Program Turns 44 This Year: It’s Making a Difference

Posted on April 22, 2024

EPA’s Superfund Program Turns 44 This Year: 

Authors: Pete Delano, PE, Director of Project Development & Scott Harding, PE, Vice President of Business Development

In the early 20th century, industrial activities and improper waste disposal practices led to the accumulation of toxic substances in various locations across the United States, posing a threat to both the environment and public health. To counteract this and reduce future impacts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set forth on a mission to identify and remediate contaminated sites and to hold accountable parties responsible for the costs associated with these clean-ups. Thus, in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was born – more commonly known as the “Superfund”.

How does it work?

The Superfund has served as the primary Federal regulatory mechanism to address hazardous waste sites across the United States, responding to potential environmental human health risks from abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in cooperation with States and Tribal Nations. It is a complex process that can be broken down into six primary steps:

  1. Site Discovery and Assessment: Often, this phase begins with a notification to EPA by a local or State agency of a potential or actual spill, leak, or release, followed by EPA conducting a brief site inspection and some limited initial sampling to determine if regulated hazardous materials are present and to establish the severity of potential risks to human health and the environment.

 

  1. Placement on the National Priorities List (NPL): During this phase, EPA will conduct a pre-CERCLA screening, more site sampling and investigation is completed to establish the nature and extent of contamination further, and the site is ranked and prioritized against other hazardous sites that qualify for Superfund resources and efforts.

 

  1. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS): This stage involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination at a site and assessing risk to human health and the environment. This stage of the process also includes evaluation of the potential performance and cost of the remedial options identified for a site.

 

  1. Records of Decision (ROD): The ROD explains which cleanup alternatives will be used at NPL sites. Leading up to the issuance of the ROD, the EPA recommends a preferred remedy and presents the cleanup plan in a document called a Proposed Plan for public comment.

 

  1. Remedial Design/Remedial Action: Detailed cleanup plans are developed and implemented during the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) stage. Remedial design includes development of engineering drawings and specifications for a site cleanup. Remedial action follows design and involves the actual construction or implementation phase of site cleanup.

 

  1. Post Construction Completion: Activities undertaken during this phase help ensure that cleanup work at a site continues to protect human health and the environment. Work can include routine monitoring of a site; routine reviews of the site to ensure cleanup continues to be effective; and enforcing any long term site restrictions.

 

EPA’s goal is to make sure site cleanup is consistent with the likely future use of a site. Consideration of reuse at a site can occur at any point in the Superfund cleanup process, from site investigation activities to deletion from the NPL. EPA works with communities to make sure sites or portions of sites are used safely.

Throughout the CERCLA process, EPA relies on a pool of engineering and environmental firms to conduct this CERCLA work that have been deemed to be qualified as having the necessary engineers, geologists, scientists, chemists, toxicologists, and other related CERCLA expertise.

So, who funds the Superfund?

The EPA has had success seeking out responsible polluters to perform or fund their site cleanups – in 2023 alone, the EPA’s enforcement actions resulted in more than $900M in responsible party commitments, further helping to fund needed cleanups. But what happens when a responsible party can’t be identified or in situations like natural disasters where no one can be held responsible to foot the bill? In those cases, the EPA must rely on additional funding.

For instance, in 2021, the Bilateral Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) assigned $3.5B to the EPA’s Superfund program. On top of this, the long-discontinued Federal petroleum tax was reinstated. This is a reinstated Federal excise tax placed on every gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel sold in the US and is expected to generate more than $50B in revenue over the next 10 years, potentially allowing the Superfund program to accelerate many more site cleanups well into the future.

What does the future hold?

Over the years, the Superfund has made significant progress in cleaning up contaminated sites and protecting communities. Thousands of sites have been addressed and successful cleanups have led to the revitalization of once-polluted areas. The Superfund program has not only improved environmental quality, it has enhanced public health and safety.

Since 1980, 457 sites have successfully been deleted from the NPL. Today, about 1,335 sites remain and about 1,242 sites are considered substantially “Construction Complete”, according to data published by the EPA.

Moving forward, the EPA has stated that their plans and priorities to evolve the Superfund’s future priorities are as follows:

Since its inception, the EPA’s Superfund has certainly experienced ebbs and flows in its funding, progress, priorities, and political pressures. But overall, its primary mission remains the same today as it has for over forty years: protect human health and the environment, make responsible parties pay, involve communities in the process, and ultimately return Superfund sites to productive use. The work is complex and it can take many years to navigate the entire CERCLA process, but it’s a critically important effort towards improving the communities we live in now and for generations to come.

-->

Unlocking the Artistic Side of Engineering

Posted on April 11, 2024

Unlocking the Artistic Side of Engineering

Author: J. Christopher Nadeau, PE – Director of Commercial Services | Associate

Despite the stereotype of a typical engineer as being calculated and precise, most engineers have a creative side with an ability to cross the boundaries of mathematics and science.

Growing up with a parent who was an avid landscape artist, I have always had a passion for drawing and painting. I took art classes throughout my years of school and University, but never really considered myself good enough to pursue it further. My drive to pursue a career in engineering and raising a family caused that interest to take a back seat. Now that I’m getting on in my years, I think about revisiting that original passion.

I attended a national conference for engineering companies back in October where I heard a speaker talking about the advancement of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) by adding Arts to make STEAM. I never considered incorporating Arts into my engineering role, but it makes sense. There is an artistic side to what we do every day, from incorporating creative elements into writing reports to creating site designs. Harnessing your artistic side allows you to think outside the box and to look at something different than the standard, rigid rules of engineering.

Setting aside my own personal interests, I have been thinking about how Nobis Group and other companies can incorporate the arts into our workplace cultures because we all realize that recruitment and retention of engineers remains one of the top industry concerns post-COVID. A shortage of engineers will remain for many years and we are burning out our existing talent.

So, how can we set ourselves apart from other equally qualified engineering firms to recruit new talent? By incorporating Arts into our company values that support and encourage employees to pursue their passions in Music, Acting, Drama, Visual Art, Creative Writing, and more. This could entail taking a class, adding a weekly social to our schedule to celebrate co-workers’ artistic talents, having a company event at an art gallery, or even a musical concert.

While writing this article, I interviewed a potential mid-level engineering candidate (something we call a “unicorn”). I asked what their interests were outside of work and not surprisingly they said they were an avid musician prior to entering the engineering world. But, like many, decided that music would not pay the bills, so a career in engineering was much more practical. A familiar decision many of us have faced.

Where do we go next? Personally, I need to carve out time in my schedule to pursue some bucket list items: travel, learning a new language, and enrolling in drawing/painting classes. Next, I need to set goals and finally sign up for a class or two. From a company perspective, it is important to poll and listen to employees to understand the breadth of their interest in the Arts and creative opportunities to celebrate and encourage their interests. Let’s blend the worlds of STEM with the Arts to spark creativity and innovation within the engineering industry. Full STEAM ahead!

-->

New England’s Affordable Housing Shortage – Don’t Forget Our Seniors!

Posted on May 17, 2023

New England’s Affordable Housing Shortage – Don’t Forget Our Seniors!

Authors: Peter Delano, PE – Senior Vice President | Associate & J. Christopher Nadeau, PE – Director of Commercial Services | Associate

We’ve all seen the news reports and articles explaining the need for more affordable housing choices in Massachusetts, and throughout all of New England, for that matter. Over the past several years, Millennials (those born between 1980-1994) have bought up a record number of homes due to year-after-year, ultra-low interest rate mortgage loans; and Generation Z (born 1995-2015) is now faced with greatly increasing housing costs and high rental rates against a low inventory. On top of all this, the Baby Boomer Generation (those born between 1946-1964) are now retiring at a rapid pace and seeking out a wide variety of senior housing options as well.

In Massachusetts alone, a shortage of more than 100,000 housing units was forecasted in 2022. When it comes to the aging “boomer” population’s housing needs, the issues that lie ahead are not “just” affordability and quantity. The challenge is much more complex. We must provide, with urgency, a solution for the very unique housing needs that our seniors will require at an ever-increasing rate: Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs).

A CCRC can be defined broadly as a community that offers a full range of long-term housing, healthcare, and essential community services and amenities to its senior residents in a setting where their changing needs over time can be accommodated without having to move to a different facility or community. Also referred to as “aging in place” communities, this is what the majority of senior citizens desire most according to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). And these “aging in place” communities are needed in both urban and suburban areas alike.

FIRST, THE NUMBERS:

By 2030, all Baby Boomers will be at least 65 years old. By 2034, the 65+ population will outnumber the number of children in the U.S. and the 85+ population will double from what it is today. Today, the 65+ U.S. population totals about 60 million and, by 2030, this number is expected to reach more than 71 million. These numbers illustrate how critical the need is to provide a massively increased number of CCRCs throughout New England.

Let’s take a look at some important site planning features that Planners, Architects, and Engineers must consider and incorporate into their design of these unique “aging in place” communities:

HOUSING UNIT FLEXIBILITY & CHOICE:

CCRCs should offer a mix of housing options including apartment rentals, condominiums, and detached/attached housing units. First floor and ADA accessible living, small-sized units, covered parking/garages, and additional space for live-in home health care aids, as well as the flexibility to move into different types of housing units within the CCRC as residents age are all critical considerations during planning and design.

AMENITIES:

Key CCRC amenities that must be accounted for in planning and design are access to healthcare, shared dining options, and social/recreational activity areas. Many CCRCs provide on-site healthcare clinics, dining halls, clubhouses, pool complexes, and more. The ability to provide these amenities requires an on-site workforce, workforce parking, and, oftentimes, additional related buildings and structures. Ease of access, wheelchair and mobility scooter access, and proximity to housing within the CCRC must be carefully accounted for during the site planning phase.

WELLNESS:

Promoting resident health and wellness and providing access to natural light with indoor and outdoor spaces for socialization and exercise are important site design features for an “aging in place” community, especially with quarantining and social distancing protocols that may still be in effect from the COVID-19 pandemic. Many CCRCs also offer specialized care for seniors affected by Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia including circular winding walking pathways, with a focus on sufficient site lighting, proper fencing, and carefully designing all pedestrian-vehicle interface areas.

SAFETY & ACCESS:

Site design layout for access into and throughout a CCRC must also carefully account for vehicle parking for visitors, employees, care providers, senior van shuttles, ambulances, and other emergency services. Design considerations for community access and exit points, whether to have controlled gated access or not, and having an accessible location and process to safely control and receive visitors are all critical design considerations for CCRCs and their residents.

Continuing Care Retirement Communities are not just a solution to our current “boomer” population’s critical housing needs – these communities are a long-term investment in the future of all generations, providing choice, independence, and dignity when it comes to aging in a safe, affordable, and supportive long-term housing community.

The effort to provide thoughtfully designed aging in place communities requires many key stakeholders to come together: our community leaders, elected politicians, developers, real estate professionals, and, of course, the Architecture & Engineering industry.

So, let’s get going because we’re not getting any younger.

-->

Contaminated Soil Management in Massachusetts – Plan Ahead and Plan Carefully!

Posted on November 17, 2022

Contaminated Soil Management in Massachusetts – Plan Ahead and Plan Carefully!

Author: Jeffrey Brunelle, CPG – Director of Project Development

In Massachusetts, it’s becoming increasingly challenging to manage excess soil generated during construction that requires off-site disposal. Today, there are fewer facilities that will accept soil for disposal within the Commonwealth. Contaminated material exceeding the Reportable Concentrations as promulgated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) typically must be disposed out of state.

Disposal restrictions and increasing costs often have big impacts on the overall project budget and schedule, so early soil management planning is imperative to the smooth execution of a construction project that includes earthwork and off-site soil disposal.

Plan for Soil Management

It’s important that consultants explain and educate their clients early on that soil disposal is complex and that contamination can be encountered even on supposedly clean sites. Often clients don’t include soil disposal in the budget, as they may assume sites with no evidence of historical contamination to be clean; however, even assumed clean sites may still have stringent disposal requirements.

It’s very rare to have soil, especially from urban sites, that is deemed to be acceptable for unrestricted use. Even marginally contaminated soil or soil with compound concentrations less than MassDEP reportable concentrations require some special handling and disposal to ensure that contamination is not inadvertently spread to a new location.

Soil characterization and disposal costs can very easily and quickly grow significantly, depending on the volume of soil and compounds encountered in the soil. And it’s through effective soil management planning that one can best avoid costly change orders or unplanned costs related to soil management and disposal.

Soil Testing

Soil to be moved off-site needs to be sampled for a robust analytical suite to identify reuse and disposal options. The number of samples to be collected depends on the volume of soil to be disposed and the permit requirements of the licensed disposal facility. In addition, facilities may also have specific acceptance criteria outside of analytical testing, such as requirements for soil field screening using an Photoionization Detector (PID) or observation of soil excavation by a certified environmental professional.

Analytical data will be compared to disposal facility acceptance criteria to establish available off-site disposal options. Facility acceptance criteria varies from facility to facility and is based on the facility’s operating permit. Permit requirements are often based on a facility’s processes and location.

There’s Liability with Testing

Whenever you collect analytical samples, results are subject to comparison to the MassDEP standards promulgated in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). Data that exceeds the MCP Reportable Concentrations requires MassDEP notification and contaminant remediation under the MCP.

Projects tracked by MassDEP under the MCP can be costly and time consuming. Be sure that your project plans warrant soil sampling prior to sample collection to limit potential cleanup liability under the MCP.

Think About Your Soil Management Options

Can soil be reused on-site? If so, soil sampling may not be warranted. Is in-situ soil characterization or stockpile profiling more appropriate for your project? Pre-characterization of in-situ soil can be helpful for budgeting purposes; however, this approach does not guarantee that pre-characterized soil is always representative of actual soil to be disposed. Characterization of stockpiled soil that has been excavated is always more representative, but unknown costs, schedule, and facility selection implications may be unknown until the time of sampling. Also, there’s not always adequate physical space on a jobsite to store and manage stockpiled soil.

These soil assessment management implications should be discussed with the project team early in the job process to find which method will work best for your project. Soil management plans should be documented within the project specifications and in a Soil Management Plan for unregulated sites or a Release Abatement Measure Plan (RAM Plan) if the Site is tracked under the MCP.

Acceptance for Disposal Takes Time

Analytical turnaround times are typically around two weeks due to the robust analytical suite mentioned above and due to the time required for sample analysis. Often analytical results cannot be rushed since some of the analytical processes take a set amount of time (such as extraction for Polychlorinated Biphenyls or metals).

Disposal facility selection may be dictated by the project schedule. There may not always be an earthwork contractor under contract to select disposal locations during the early project phase when soil management decisions are made, so it’s key to make clear upfront who is responsible for this task. Typically, it is the responsibility of the earthwork contractor to select disposal locations, and they are not always present in the project planning phase.

Typically, it is the responsibility of the earthwork contractor to select soil disposal locations; however, the contractor may not be under contract during the early project phase when soil management decisions are made. Facility selection may be dictated by the project schedule, so it’s key to decide upfront who is responsible for this task.

Soil profiles are required by each proposed disposal facility. As mentioned above, acceptance criteria vary from facility to facility. Because of this, facility evaluation can be complicated and take time. Also, the time needed for the disposal facility to review the soil profiles has to be taken into consideration. Often a disposal facility contracts with an environmental firm to review their disposal applications. Understandably, this further adds to the acceptance timeline. Also, if your site is regulated by the MassDEP and is subject to requirements of the MCP, a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) is required to complete the soil profiles and transportation paperwork.

Plan for a month or more for facility acceptance.

Disposal Options

Do some “what if” scenario planning, but always work toward the best disposal option and, again, start this effort early on. Have a contingency plan and back-up facilities for soil disposal. Obviously, as soil volumes and contamination increases, so do the associated disposal costs.

Soil with concentrations consistent with background levels (as defined in 310 CMR 40.0006) typically do not have reuse restrictions since contaminant concentrations are non-detect or extremely low. This type of soil may not generate a disposal cost, but  may carry a liability due to potential human health concern risks, as reuse locations could include a school, daycare, or backyard.

Soil classified as hazardous waste carries a high cost of disposal due to the potentially toxic characteristics of this material and the specialized handling and disposal requirements. No in-state facilities are available for hazardous waste disposal, and transport to an applicable disposal facility could be as far as Ohio or Canada.

Unrestricted use and hazardous waste classifications “book end” the wide spectrum of soil management classification. Typically, soil is classified as either impacted soil or contaminated soil. Impacted soil contains compound concentrations greater than background levels, but less than the MCP release notification thresholds. Contaminated soil contains concentrations of contaminants that exceed in-state acceptance criteria and are not classified as a Hazardous Waste.

Impacted soils may be reused at in-state locations such as a MassDEP-permitted reclamation soil project under MassDEP Policy COMM-15-01 or reused as daily cover, intermediate cover, or pre-cap contouring material at in-state unlined or lined landfills under the MassDEP COMM 97 Policy.

COMM-15 facilities require scrutiny for acceptance since acceptance criteria is not universal. COMM-97 acceptance evaluations are easier because the acceptance criteria are universal, as published in the policy documents. Disposal at these in-state facilities can be problematic, as quantities to be accepted may be capped yearly and these facilities do not always operate on a fixed schedule. With varying schedules for operations, these facilities commonly stop accepting waste as they reach their established annual capacity, rendering these disposal options unreliable.

There are no longer any in-state options for disposal of contaminated material, making hauling and disposal costly under this soil category. Also, impacted soil may be managed as contaminated soil (and carry a higher premium as such) as disposal options for impacted soil become no longer available.

Consider Soil Reuse On-Site

Another option is to reuse soil that is not grossly contaminated on-site. MassDEP permits on-site soil reuse typically when contaminant concentrations do not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment and reuse of soil will not degrade the soil quality at the site.

The Similar Soils provision prohibits contaminated soil from being moved to a portion of the site that has lesser contaminant concentrations (i.e., a cleaner area of the site), so some site investigation may be necessary to document site conditions for reuse.

Another consideration for site reuse would be geotechnical suitability to ensure the material to be reused on-site meets construction requirements. This brings up a key point – soil contamination is not the only factor that may require off-site disposal. Soil with high debris components may be unusable in construction and therefore would require off-site characterization and disposal.

Conclusion

Soil management considerations as an afterthought are often costly to the project. Disposal costs may vary from as little as $22 per ton for COMM-15 soil to more than $450 per ton for hazardous waste. Remember that economic variables such as cost of fuel, personnel shortages, and supply chain issues each can adversely impact your disposal costs.

Ignoring or delaying soil management planning may result in hefty project change orders and significant project delays. Carry a monetary contingency for soil management evaluations and off-site soil disposal to avoid surprises. Also – your site is never as clean as you think it is. It’s likely going to cost something for off-site disposal of soil you can’t reuse on-site. So, plan ahead and plan carefully!

-->

Using Ground Improvements to Engineer Safer Solutions for Urban Development

Posted on October 26, 2022

Using Ground Improvements to Engineer Safer Solutions for Urban Development

Author: Sarah Kurtzer, EIT – Project Engineer

With the rise in construction activity and demand for additional and improved transportation services, the need to utilize sites with unsuitable soil conditions for new construction has increased substantially in the past few decades. Building on these unsuitable soils can result in bearing capacity failures, excessive settlement, liquefaction of soils, sinkholes in roadways, and landslides, to name a few. Previously, very few (and usually costly) methods were available to solve the issues associated with unsuitable soil conditions like uncontrolled fill, soft clays, loose coarse-grained soils, and collapsible soils.

Ground improvement, or ground modification, is the process of using mechanical means to improve the engineering properties of on-site soils. Ground improvement comes in many forms including densification of existing on-site soils, drainage and dewatering, preloading, reinforcement, chemical stabilization, and thermal and biological treatment. Selection of a ground improvement method should consider structural, geotechnical, environmental, and construction conditions, as well as reliability and durability. Some of the more common types of ground improvements are traditional compacting, deep dynamic compaction, rapid impact compaction, aggregate piers, and rigid inclusions.

Ground improvements have become a favorable option as technology has advanced. In many situations, improving the ground is a more economic and more efficient means of making a site suitable for construction. Ground improvements may eliminate the need for costly deep foundation systems such as driven piles, drilled shafts, and micropiles. Disposal costs may also be reduced as most ground improvement methods produce little to no waste, which is extremely advantageous on environmentally impacted sites.

The geotechnical industry is always developing and implementing new ways to work with difficult geotechnical conditions. Ground improvements provide alternative solutions to urban development that can be tailored to each specific site and project.

-->

When Safety and Quality are Critical, Take a Cue from the Nuclear Power Industry

Posted on October 10, 2022

When Safety and Quality are Critical, Take a Cue from the Nuclear Power Industry

Author: Zachary R. Reed, ASP, CHST – Health & Safety Manager

 

Human Performance Tools

Do you remember playing “telephone” when you were younger? In a game of telephone, one person begins by whispering a secret phrase into the closest player’s ear. In sequence, each recipient relays the message – as well as they can – to the next person. In the end, the last person exclaims the message they think they heard, and of course it is invariably revealed that the message was horribly confused throughout the chain of players! How could the simple act of repeating a sentence get so badly muddled?

 

While communication errors may be a reliable way to entertain a classroom full of children, when the stakes are higher, matters of clear communication, and reducing human error generally, can be serious. One does not have to think hard to imagine settings and occupations where human error could lead to disaster – nuclear energy production, manufacturing, railroad transportation, and military applications to name a few. The US Department of Energy claims that about 80% of adverse events are the result of human error. As a safety professional, I am always interested in learning about ways to weed out mistakes – those human errors that can seem so elusive and hard to control – but can result in injury, property damage, and environmental damage just the same as mechanical failures, maintenance problems, and other causes which may seem easier to detect before they become an issue. The game of telephone is an exaggerated example for certain – but any time we undertake tasks with others, the risk of human error from unclear communication or imperfect instruction is a factor. Given such a large percentage of errors may be related to human performance, isn’t it reasonable that we should seek to do whatever we can to reduce their incidence?

 

One resource that doesn’t get much attention outside of the industries like the ones mentioned above is the concept of Human Performance Tools (HPT). Essentially HPT are a group of behaviors that can be employed – by anyone, whether they be plant personnel, construction workers, or engineers – to reduce the likelihood of undesirable human error events. Sounds good right? When it really matters, any business or organization can use HPT to reduce human error and help critical outcomes succeed. Widely used by the nuclear energy industry, the U.S. Department of Energy has published for public release a two part manual for understanding and employing HPT titled DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Human Performance Improvement Handbook. In this article we will look at three of the easiest to use and widely applicable tools, that you can use to improve safety, quality, productivity in your organization’s critical endeavors.

 

Pre-Job Briefings

It may seem simple but taking the time to write a plan – tailored to your activity – – and then discussing it with your team is probably the most impactful thing you can do to reduce human error. In the rush to begin a task or project, this crucial step is often skipped – leading to dangerous or time-consuming mistakes. When conducting your pre-job briefing, include the scope of work, team roles and responsibilities, the sequence of steps, hazards associated with each step, means of controlling each hazard or risk, criteria for when to stop and re-evaluate, and inspection requirements for your tools and equipment. Having a pre-job brief every time you start a task will help all involved better understand the task, and their role. It will help to ensure that needed supplies and equipment are staged and ready to go before the work starts. It will give everyone a chance to ask questions and gain a better understanding of the task which not only improves safety outcomes, but also efficiency, improving your organization’s bottom line.

 

Consistently conducting pre-job briefings will help prevent complacency, improve efficiency, and combat dangerous or misguided assumptions. Though it may seem obvious, there is good reason that pre-job briefings are a big part of HPT in safety-critical environments. As the adage goes, “those who fail to plan, should plan to fail”.

 

Three-Way Communication

Remember our game of telephone? Three-way communication is essentially the opposite of that. Three-way communication consists of using three steps to communicate a message (usually instructions) between a sender and receiver, while minimizing the chance of error or misinterpretation. It is equally useful in face-to-face communication as it is in remote communication, where static, lag, or other technological limitations may interfere with clear communication. The three steps to be used are:

1. The sender states their message clearly to the receiver.

2. The receiver repeats the message back to the sender in their own words, however repeating names and labels word-for-word. Paraphrasing in this step allows the sender to evaluate whether the receiver truly understands the message, as opposed to merely repeating what was heard.

3. The sender informs the receiver whether the message was properly understood. When communicating other than face-to-face, using phonetically dissimilar sounding phrases, for example “Yes, that is correct” and “No, that is wrong” as opposed to saying “incorrect” will ensure that the message will be heard correctly even if fragments are lost in telecommunication. If the receiver demonstrates incorrect understanding of the sender’s message, the sender restates the message until proper understanding is confirmed.

Using three-way communication, much like pre-job briefings, is a great way to know if your team knows exactly who, what, when and where must be done, while nipping assumptions and misunderstandings in the bud.

 

The NATO Phonetic Alphabet

In the early 20th Century, as voice telecommunications becoming commonplace around the world, it became apparent that miscommunication of the spoken names of letters of the alphabet was a new source of human error. When spoken through, for instance radio, it was common for phonetically similar sounding letter names to be confused by the listener. Consider how similar “B”, “D” and “V” sound, or worse yet, “M” and “N”. Various phonetic alphabets, also known as speaking alphabets, were developed by organizations around the world to eliminate these errors by giving each letter a phonetically distinct sounding name.

 

It wasn’t until 1956 that the NATO phonetic alphabet was adopted in its current form (see sidebar), but it has been the closest thing to a universal standard for many organizations ever since. Taking a little time to memorize the NATO alphabet and use it when spelling or communicating letter names will make your telecommunications more effective and accurate (even if you only use it to spell your email address over the phone). Using agreed upon standards rather than improvised solutions is a theme in HPT. For phonetic alphabet selection, the NATO phonetic alphabet represents the most widely adopted choice.

The NATO Phonetic Alphabet – note the spellings of “Alfa” and “Juliett” are intended to reduce mispronunciation errors across a variety of language users.

 

Over and Out

This article only described three of the many HPT adopted by the DOE and other safety-sensitive organizations. Much more information regarding strategies for groups and individuals to reduce human error is available in DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Human Performance Improvement Handbook. The fact is, these and other tools work.

 

If you aren’t used to them, using HPT can perhaps seem silly or overly serious. Famously, foreign tourists visiting Tokyo, Japan are often perplexed by railroad workers’ constant pointing and calling out seemingly mundane things in and around trains. What tourists may not realize is that these railroad workers are using their industry’s own form of HPT to ensure that routine actions are completed properly and safely. Since its adoption, the system, known as shisa kanko (point and call) has reduced targeted human errors by about 85%. Though shisa kanko may not be useful to your organization, if you accept that human error is widespread, you may find that using some of these tools as well as others found in the DOE handbook, may be worth putting self-conscious feelings aside and implementing in your workplace to mitigate costly human errors.

 

Human Performance Tools have been developed to eliminate human error where it simply isn’t acceptable. True, there are few things as critical as safely operating a nuclear power plant or operating a commuter railroad. It is up to you and your specific goals with respect to safety and quality in your operations to determine how much risk of error you can tolerate. For those operations where there is simply no room for error, or simply to take a bite out of 80% of your organization’s errors, consider using Human Performance Tools to reduce mistakes.

-->

I Hear a Train a Comin’

Posted on August 3, 2022

I Hear a Train a Comin’

Author: Tony Giunta, PG – Director of Project Development

As most of the world is basking in hellish heat and the President contemplates enacting an “Emergency Climate Declaration” to combat global warming, Nobis Group can proudly proclaim that, for the past six years, we have been working with solar developers to permit dozens of clean, zero-emission, renewable energy projects. And although I’m thrilled to be part of a more sustainable energy future, experience has provided me with a disturbing glimpse into the future, and I can’t help but recall some old lyrics by the immortal Johnny Cash:

I hear a train a comin’,

It’s rolling ‘round the bend…

And, from how I see it, just on the other side of that bend are all our renewable energy projects, precariously strewn across the tracks, waiting to be smashed by that ever-approaching train. The train is a euphemism here, of course, and it represents the growing chorus of opposition from those vehemently against renewable energy projects – whenever and wherever proposed. It doesn’t matter whether the community has committed to carbon reduction goals, and it doesn’t matter if these projects are proposed in areas populated by majority Republicans or Democrats, environmentalists or capitalists, global warming believers or deniers. Wherever I go, the message is clear: “Your renewable energy project isn’t welcome here!”.

The “clear and present danger” is to placate such ubiquitous opposition, planning and zoning boards have reluctantly approved these projects with their greatest attention placed on conditions that require renewable energy systems to be completely decommissioned upon exhaustion of their useful life (20-25 years). In addition, decommissioning agreements include returning the property to its “original condition”, with no further development of the property in perpetuity.

Often, I’ve seen more time spent discussing how and when these sustainable energy systems will be dismantled than how they’ll be constructed! In addition, and in complete defiance of State Statutes, many communities then pass ordinances or warrant articles that significantly restrict future renewable energy projects from being constructed in their communities. Talk about hypocrisy!

So, I ask, if all these renewable energy projects have decommissioning plans firmly in place, how are we to meet our federal, state, and local zero carbon emission goals by 2050? Just when we’d start making progress on achieving these goals, decommissioning provisions will kick in and cause massive amounts of renewable power to be taken off-line. Further, with provisions in place that restrict new energy projects from being rebuilt on these sites and land regulations that significantly restrict areas of new development, where are we to turn for additional renewable energy production?

I’ve been sounding the alarm to this paradox, but it often seems to fall on deaf ears. Maybe I’ll get more attention if I break into my own song next time…

I hear a train a comin’,

It’s rolling ‘round the bend.

That train’s headin’ straight for us,

and I don’t like how this ends…”

-->

Sand & Gravel vs Bedrock – Understanding Aquifer Solutions for Your Water Supply

Posted on July 19, 2022

Sand & Gravel vs Bedrock – Understanding Aquifer Solutions for Your Water Supply

Author: Jennifer Lambert, PG – Director of Environmental Services NH

A good water supply needs both sufficient quality and quantity – which can be complicated in New England. The first choice for water supply wells is overburden material, particularly sand and gravel. A “clean” (minimal finer-grained material) sand and gravel aquifer is a great source for large quantities of water. However, here in New England, we frequently encounter deposits that include finer material, which fills in the smaller pore spaces and reduces the amount of water that can be stored in a given volume and also the speed at which groundwater can move.

A sand and gravel aquifer can also be highly sensitive to contamination, however, because the same properties that allow for high flow for a drinking water well also allow contaminants to migrate with groundwater to that drinking water well. In addition to point sources of contamination (such as gas stations with potential fuel spills or hazardous waste sites), agriculture and densely populated residential areas with leach fields also have the potential to impact water supply with microbial contamination and excess fertilizer (the Walkerton, Ontario E. coli outbreak is an extreme example of this). Another issue for wells drawing from sand and gravel aquifers is the potential for them to tap into and deplete water from local wetlands and surface water bodies, causing potential damage to sensitive habitats.

Because a sand and gravel aquifer is both an excellent water source in terms of water production and may be impacted by (or may impact) near-surface conditions, these materials have been studied and identified. New Hampshire’s Granit geographic information system (GIS) has a layer identifying stratified drift (sand and gravel) aquifers, and Massachusetts’ Oliver GIS system identifies high yield and medium yield aquifers. These can be used as a starting point for determining if a sand and gravel water supply well should be considered.

Bedrock water supplies are more complicated, as most of the water will flow through specific fractures or fracture networks. Here in New England, our bedrock is frequently “mashed up” (you can see this on many of the road cuts, particularly southern portions of I-93 in New Hampshire), and therefore major water-bearing fractures are difficult to predict. Hydrogeologists use signs of fractures in the landscape (photolineaments) and surface geophysics to try and identify likely fracture zones, but the only way to confirm that a fracture or fracture zone will actually produce sufficient water is to drill test wells. Many of the residential wells in New England are bedrock wells because of the relative scarcity of sufficiently thick sand and gravel deposits; in this case, the driller will keep going until sufficient water is reached because there is not enough room to move to another area. This means that residential bedrock wells can be hundreds of feet deep.

Bedrock wells are generally well insulated from surface contaminants (although this is not true for all wells; shallow contamination can short-circuit the overburden and occur at surprising depths via near-vertical fractures) compared to sand and gravel wells. However, the bedrock itself can cause other issues: radon and naturally occurring metals such as iron, arsenic, and manganese that can both impact health and foul plumbing.

As our population increases and more people move into formerly rural areas, we will need to find additional water sources. Groundwater from both overburden (sand and gravel) and bedrock will likely need to be part of the solution, so it is important to consider both resources and their advantages and disadvantages in future planning.

-->

Four “Musts” When Evaluating PFAS at Your Site

Posted on May 16, 2022

Four “Musts” When Evaluating PFAS at Your Site

Author: Krystina Lincoln, GIT – Project Geologist

Deciding to begin a Site Investigation for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) can be a worrisome proposition for any property owner or facility manager. Frequently referred to as “forever chemicals”, PFAS compounds are man-made compounds found in many consumer products, manufacturing processes, and aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) for firefighting. These compounds have been widely used since the 1950s and, while their gradual (and ongoing) phaseout has been underway for the last few decades, their presence and impact is far reaching. Further information on the background of PFAS compounds can be found in this ITRC Fact Sheet. This guide provides four “musts” when evaluating PFAS at your site.

 

Conduct a “Deep Dive” Into Historical Site Use

As PFAS compounds can have many sources, a good starting point is to conduct a “deep dive” into historical uses at the site and surrounding area. State/municipal records should be reviewed early on, including available Sanborn maps, to identify any past manufacturers, including metal finishing, textiles, carpeting, leather, paper products, automotive, industrial surfactants, and more that existed on the site. Dry cleaners may have processed PFAS-containing clothing, as well as any manufacturer of consumer products that applied stain or water repellants. AFFF could have been deployed during training or emergency response at fire stations, airports, military bases, or even at the location of a past building fire or vehicle accident. If the presence of PFAS is suspected at the site, potentially impacted areas of the site should be contained and identified. For instance, was fire training conducted in the rear parking lot? Is there a leach field that received discharge from a floor drain on the production floor?

 

Carefully Consider Your Analytical Methods

Given the low required reporting limits and complex nature of PFAS analyses available, commit sufficient time to read the regulations and to fully understand the analytical methodologies. At this stage, a great deal of proactive communication and planning with the analytical laboratory as well as other project stakeholders is critical. There are currently two widely available EPA approved methods for the analysis of PFAS compounds in drinking water (Methods 533 and 537.1), along with a third recently finalized method intended for non-drinking water matrices (SW-846 Method 8327). As SW-846 Method 8327 was only finalized in June 2021, many labs still do not have their Method 8327 certifications, but offering a Method 537 “Modified” approach for non-drinking water matrices. It’s important understand that each analytical method offers different, but overlapping, lists of PFAS compounds, so care must be taken to comply with the methods accepted by each State regulatory agency.

 

Must Avoid Cross-Contamination Risks In the Field

When conducting a PFAS-focused investigation at your site, it’s critical that any PFAS reported in the samples accurately represents the concentrations in site soil, groundwater, and/or surface water. Cross-contamination introduced during sampling will produce inaccurate results. PFAS compounds have been detected in many common products used during an environmental investigation including new clothing, rain gear, some sunscreens, water-proof field notebooks, and Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based materials. While great care must be taken to prevent cross-contamination when collecting traditional environmental samples, an additional level of caution needs to be utilized when sampling for PFAS due to the presence of PFAS in many everyday items. PFAS containers should be collected before any others in a sampling suite, to minimize cross contamination. Frequent changes of nitrile gloves are necessary when handling any down well equipment and sample containers. Any suspected PFAS containing products should be kept far from the sampling area, or off-site if possible.

 

Off-site PFAS Sources Must Be Considered

After the sample results come in, a valuable exercise is to carefully evaluate potential offsite sources – if PFAS are found at your site. While not always conclusive, individual PFAS sources generate a different “signature”, or balance, of PFAS compounds. For example, AFFF use can create a PFAS signature with significant Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and Perfluorohexanesulphonic acid (PFHxS), compared to other analyzed compounds. Even at the same AFFF impacted site, PFAS signatures may differ based on the “generation” of AFFF deployed in certain areas at the site. Older foams may contain higher relative amounts of PFOS when compared to PFOA. Metal plating facilities may generate PFOS heavy signatures. Signature evaluation may prove important when developing a conceptual site model in an industrialized area where multiple potential sources of PFAS are present. PFAS plumes can be longer than other contaminants like MtBE, BTEX, and chlorinated compounds, so the upgradient survey must keep this in mind.

-->

Why Don’t We Build Solar Arrays on All of New Hampshire’s Closed Landfills?

Posted on March 22, 2022

Why Don’t We Build Solar Arrays on All of New Hampshire’s Closed Landfills?

Author: Chris Nadeau, PE – Director of Commercial Services

Installing solar arrays on closed landfills sounds like a great idea, right? Introducing a beneficial reuse for an environmentally impacted property, especially a municipally owned abandoned lot for which there are few other valuable reuse options, seems like a practical solution all around.

However, as is often the case in life, what sounds great in theory is not always as sensible in practice.

Landfills are designed to minimize land area and maximize the ability to accept trash. To accomplish this, landfills fill vertically, which results in steep slopes and very little “flat” area on top. Most landfills are constructed with very steep slopes of 25-33%. Comparatively, if you’ve ever driven the Kancamagus Highway, its steepest slope is only 7%. This presents the first issue with constructing solar on landfill sites: solar panels need to be installed on surfaces with less than 10% slope.

In addition to slope requirements, the most efficient layout for solar arrays is placing them in long rows. These long rows of solar panels consist of table assemblies supported by steel racks or “legs” that are driven into the ground to prevent uplift from wind and downward pressure from the weight of the solar panel system and snow loads. When a landfill reaches its design capacity and is closed, an impermeable protective cap made up of soil and/or synthetic plastic lining is placed over its surface to shed precipitation. This impermeable layer would be perforated by the installation of traditional solar foundation legs, and therefore solar panel foundations on landfills must be constructed using specialized ballast – like concrete or rock filled baskets – that lay on the ground’s surface. These “landfill foundations” are significantly more complex and costlier to construct.

Furthermore, since most landfill caps are permitted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Solid Waste Bureau, in order to make any modifications to a landfill, solar developers must file a “Modification Permit” which requires a complete analysis of the foundation loads on the cap. This analysis is required to prevent differential settlement of the cap system and to demonstrate that the arrays will not slide off the side of the landfill. Additionally, solar developers need to demonstrate that the application of impervious solar panels will not adversely affect the landfill cap by introducing higher stormwater runoff rates that would cause erosion of the landfill surface. In short, these analyses often reveal that steep landfill slopes will not adequately support solar arrays.

If slope and foundation hurdles aren’t enough to deter a solar developer from pursuing a landfill location, further requirements for the actual construction just might. Developers must analyze and ensure that the weight of construction equipment driving over the landfill cap during installation of solar arrays does not adversely impact the impervious cap material. If that can’t be assured, then it’s “lights out” (quite literally) for construction of the solar array. Even the wiring between panels poses an issue: it must be run above ground instead of buried like a typical array, in order to avoid penetrations into the cap liner system. This specialized wiring adds additional costs and complexity to overall maintenance of the system after it is built.

Speaking of wiring, all solar projects – regardless of whether or not they are located on a landfill – must be located in close proximity to a 3-phase electrical distribution line. This allows the solar panel system to be connected to an electrical substation that has the capacity to allow additional load. Many of our municipal landfills are located in more rural areas that lack available nearby utility infrastructure required to connect solar arrays to the electrical grid.

Recognizing that a solar project has to produce enough power to offset all of these additional costs for engineering, construction, and interconnection, it easy to see how, although placing solar on our landfills may seem like a great concept, the multitude of constraints can (and often do) kill these highly specialized projects.

-->

Manganese and Arsenic in New Hampshire’s Drinking Water Supplies – What You Need To Know

Posted on October 7, 2021

Manganese and Arsenic in New Hampshire’s Drinking Water Supplies – What You Need To Know

Author: Jim Vernon, PhD, PG, CG – Director of Water Supply Services

Manganese and arsenic are metals that are commonly found in New Hampshire’s drinking water wells. Commonly referred to as “contaminants”, these metals typically derive from natural sources. (Manganese and arsenic that are elevated due to human-caused contamination or treatment for other contaminants is a subject for a future article.)

Concentrations of both manganese and arsenic in New Hampshire groundwater vary greatly, depending on many factors including the type of underlying bedrock and other water chemistry factors, such as the pH (measure of water’s acidity) and oxidation/reduction potential. Elevated levels of one metal does not necessarily indicate elevated levels of the other. Both metals can be found in bedrock wells, while manganese is also found in some dug wells and screened wells tapping overburden groundwater. Shallow wells near swamps have a greater likelihood of elevated manganese than wells not located near swamps or wetlands, but there are many exceptions.

Long considered an aesthetic parameter (possibly staining bathroom fixtures or laundry), manganese is now known to present health risks at higher concentrations, including neurotoxic effects on infants and children. Manganese concentrations in drinking water are subject to a series of standards that can be measured in micrograms per liter (ug/L), which is equivalent to parts per billion (ppb). Here are the current New Hampshire standards for manganese:

Depending on the groundwater chemistry in a well, manganese can either be dissolved in the water or suspended as particles or colloids. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) advises testing for both dissolved manganese and total manganese before selecting a water treatment option. For more information, consult NHDES Fact Sheets on manganese and on water treatment, available on the NHDES website.

Arsenic is potentially more dangerous at lower concentrations in groundwater than manganese. Arsenic concentrations are higher in some parts of NH than others, depending on bedrock type and other factors. Arsenic can occur in two forms in well water: As-III (Arsenite) or As-V (Arsenate). Long-term consumption of water with elevated arsenic increases the risk of certain cancers and other disorders; additional risks are found in infants who consume water with elevated arsenic. For additional information, consult NHDES Fact Sheet DWGB-3-2, available on the NHDES website.

Research has determined that lower concentrations of arsenic can produce health risks, so standards have progressively lowered (become more stringent) over the years:

Water tests are recommended for private wells, particularly bedrock wells. If the result is greater than 5 ug/L NHDES recommends testing for the specific types of arsenic (As-III vs As-V) because treatment methods vary depending on which type of arsenic is present. For more information, see NHDES Fact Sheet DGWB-3-2.

-->

Written Safety Programs – Does Your Business Need One?

Posted on September 21, 2021

Written Safety Programs – Does Your Business Need One?

Author: Jeremy Wherren, CSP, CHMM, CMQ/OE – EHS Management Practice Leader

With all of the responsibilities required to run a business, it can be difficult to think about (let alone implement) a written health and safety program that addresses all of the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements relevant to your industry. Or, worse yet, an employee filed a complaint and an OSHA inspector has just shown up in the lobby requesting to conduct an inspection of your facility. Are you ready? Do you know what’s required of you to maintain compliance?

Even if your company checks all of the boxes when it comes to performing work safely and conducting training for your employees, do you have the necessary written programs in place to help maintain compliance? OSHA regulations are ever-changing: whether by revision of existing requirements or publication of brand-new regulations, and it can be difficult and overwhelming to both understand and keep up with exactly what’s required for your business.

The OSHA website summarizes the following standards requiring a written program, which are commonly applicable to businesses depending on their operation. Does your company meet any of these standards?

This list is by no means all-inclusive, and some industries have additional written program requirements, such as construction under 29 CFR 1926. And it’s not just federal OSHA regulations that need to be verified for business – there are 22 states with their own OSHA-approved plans that cover both private and local government workers, and another 6 states with plans that cover just local government workers (the remaining states are covered by federal OSHA).

Several states also have their own specific requirements for health and safety related programs, which may or may not be under an OSHA-approved plan. For example, the New Hampshire Department of Labor requires a Joint Loss Management Committee or “safety committee” in a workplace with more than 15 employees, as well as a written safety program with specific elements.

Employee safety is a genuine priority for any business leader worth their salt, but even the most well-intentioned owners and professionals may not know what they don’t know. A qualified Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) consultant can provide guidance and understanding to businesses considering the applicability of EHS programs within their operations. An investment in a written health and safety plan is an investment in your employees, your clients, and your business. And often, as the saying goes, “what gets written down, gets done”.

-->

An Owner’s (or Developer’s) Checklist for Choosing the Right Site to Develop

Posted on September 7, 2021

Author: Chris Nadeau, PE – Director of Commercial Services

How many times have you heard “All the good land has been developed and now we’re just left with the difficult stuff!” or “If it was easy, it would have already been developed!”? Oftentimes that’s the case, but consider this: as our appetite for different types of development and expanding municipal growth boundaries change, so does the possibility of finding land that is appropriate and relevant for the type of development you’re pursuing.

The first step in deciding whether a piece of land is worth your time and money to develop is to establish your goals. What are you trying to accomplish? What will your ideal site layout look like (size of buildings, open space, parking, etc.)? Do you need high visibility, or can you work with something off the beaten path? Not only should you set your goals, but you need to be able to communicate your goals clearly with others. Know exactly what you want, but be flexible enough to allow for modifications.

The next step is to find some properties that will meet some or most of your goals. Once you find something, you need to go through a series of due diligence steps (“kicking the tires”) to determine whether a property is worth pursuing further before you start investing large sums of money. Following are some common steps to take while in the due-diligence phase.

At this point, you haven’t spent a dime (except for some gas money). If everything passes “the straight face test”, it might be time to hire an expert to verify or clarify your findings. If you do nothing else, spend a few hundred dollars to have a wetland scientist or land use expert perform a site reconnaissance and look for “show-stopper” issues like wetlands. You won’t regret this because nothing can be more detrimental to the development of your property than the presence of wetlands. Trust me, after 30 years in this business, I still get surprised.

For a very reasonable few thousand dollars, you can hire a land consultant or engineer to do much of this work on your behalf. Often, this low fee carrot is a promise to the expert of an actual project with more substantial fees and the establishment of a long-term relationship with you as their client. The end product can be as simple as an email summary, or a more in-depth “fatal flaw” report with a conceptual site plan that you can take to the local Town officials or Land Use Board to get their feedback on what you are proposing.

Contrary to the naysayers, there is still good land out there ready to be developed. It’s just waiting for you to make that call. By following this checklist, you’ll find the right site for the right development.

-->

Understanding (and Mitigating) Environmental Risk in Redevelopment Projects

Posted on August 31, 2021

Author: Tim Andrews, PG – Senior Project Manager

Redevelopment of a previously developed property or a Brownfields site requires a lot of planning and investment. It’s easy to focus on tangible considerations, such as the planning for the redevelopment, construction permitting requirements, and the cost for construction. But what about the less obvious considerations that can pose a significant environmental risk to you, as the future owner of the property, and to your investment? A good redevelopment plan includes completion of appropriate due diligence up front to assure the less obvious environmental risks and concerns are identified and included in the big picture for the developer and all stakeholders.

UNDERSTANDING THE RISKS

Good due diligence starts with an American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)-compliant Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA); however, this Phase I ESA may be only one piece of a larger story when it comes to understanding liabilities related to environmental issues. To best position your redevelopment plans for success, it’s important to understand what kind of risks you face up front, as a prospective purchaser or developer. The majority of environmental due diligence considerations typically include three basic areas of risk:

While there are other areas of risk or concern, as determined by the type of site and project, your environmental due diligence should take these three risk categories into consideration. Let’s run through a brief explanation of these three risk categories and how proper due diligence can identify them.

Environmental and Regulatory Risk

When acquiring any property or considering a redevelopment, there’s always the possibility of buying the responsibility for any environmental impacts or regulatory compliance issues with it. A thorough Phase I ESA completed in accordance with the ASTM standards provides a defensible means of gathering available information to identify potential environmental regulatory risks that come with the property you’re considering purchasing. Environmental risks consider the existence or likely existence of environmental conditions that can result in a liability and regulatory responsibility for the property owner, regardless of whether the owner caused the conditions. For this reason, it is important to identify and document environmental risks prior to purchase of a property to avoid future regulatory liability and possible enforcement actions.

Financial Risk

The cost considerations for a purchase and redevelopment should also include evaluation of costs driven by environmental conditions as part of due diligence. A Phase I ESA can identify some areas of concern, but not all of them, and it does not provide information about financial implications. For example, the presence of urban fill materials at a developed site containing low levels of contaminants may be regulatorily acceptable under certain conditions, but may still require management during construction. Impacted soils in an area proposed for future redevelopment may need to be removed from the property and disposed at a licensed facility due to the presence of contaminants. Depending on the contaminants, the volume of soil, and analytical/laboratory requirements, the costs involved could be a significant challenge if not considered in advance. Similarly, consideration for hazardous compounds (asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCB-containing materials) used in building materials are excluded from a standard Phase I ESA scope; however, these represent a potentially significant remedial cost when renovation or demolition is part of the redevelopment plan.

Human Health Risk

Risk to human health and the environment is the basis for the environmental regulatory drivers inherent with a given property; however, health risks that may apply to a specific property or condition can vary depending on the contamination present, the redevelopment planned, and the human population anticipated. For example, an apple orchard where pesticides have been legally applied may be completely compliant and may not be regulated as an environmental condition by state regulators; however, if the property is redeveloped for residential housing with yard space where children are present, the makeup of the population and the frequency of use of areas potentially impacted by pesticides changes from the original use. While this may not result in a regulatory risk depending on applicability to state regulations, this can still present a potential health risk to human receptors not previously considered.

IDENTIFYING AND MITIGATING THE RISKS

The three areas of risk outlined above frequently overlap with each other. The path to mitigation begins with properly identifying the risks and planning ahead. No project or site is the same, but in general, following are some of the steps you should consider:

Mitigating risks related to environmental concerns for your redevelopment project can be challenging and intimidating, but with the right team in place and a proactive approach to your planning, redeveloping an environmentally impacted site can be a beneficial investment that comes with positive impacts to local communities.

-->

We Need Less Regulation for Renewable Energy Projects

Posted on August 22, 2021

Author: Tony Giunta, PG – Director of Project Development

I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard the words, “federal law requires” more than during a recent flight to New Hampshire. From the moment I purchased my ticket “on-line” to finally boarding the plane, I had to check, confirm, attest, swear and show identification to satisfy my full compliance with “federal regulations”. And if I had to do all of that simply to fly in an airplane, imagine the mind-boggling amount of government regulations one must satisfy when it comes to building and operating something as complicated as a renewable energy project!

If history is any indication of our future, renewable energy plants large enough to make a difference in addressing climate change will take 5 to 10 years to get through the mandatory regulatory red tape of our federal, state, and local bureaucracies. Assuming your project survives this scrutiny and timeline, you next still have to build the thing! That could take just as long as achieving your regulatory approvals.

The bottom line is that if you believe the scientists and their predictions on our limited window of opportunity to slow down climate change, then factoring in the time it takes to comply with regulations alone means we may have already missed the boat. Now it’s all about minimizing the devastating aftermath of our regulatory paralysis.

How bad will things get? Well, that depends on how quickly we remove barriers to achieving net zero carbon emissions. To do so, the federal government must pass legislation prohibiting frivolous lawsuits and minimizing bureaucratic red tape from hindering the construction of renewable energy projects.

For those who believe this is impossible, precedence shows federal laws can be passed that move us past regulatory paralysis and create a real path to progress. For example, telecommunication towers were as much despised and opposed as today’s wind turbines and solar fields. But the Federal Communications Commission recognized the strategic importance of this technology and unanimously adopted a “shot clock” order pre-empting all local zoning when it comes to locating and constructing cell towers. This bold, but necessary, move did and continues to enable developers to build-out this incredibly important infrastructure.

The window of opportunity to stop global warming is gone. The hard reality is that temperatures are going to continue to rise. The question now is: how fast and how high?

With a concerted effort by our lawmakers and regulators to remove impediments to renewable energy development, we may be able to minimize the most devastating effects of a rapidly warming planet. This effort must be focused on quickly passing federal renewable energy legislation like the FCC “shot clock” order. Might I even suggest the new legislation be issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and dubbed the “short fuse” order!

-->

Why I Like Micropiles

Posted on August 17, 2021

Author: Alfred Jones, PE – Director of Geotechnical Services

A micropile is a small-diameter, drilled-in-place deep foundation that is generally installed by advancing steel casing with a drill rig and creating a bond zone beyond the depth of the casing. A threaded steel center bar is then installed to the bottom of hole and the entire bar is fully grouted along its length.

Micropiles have been around since the 1950’s, although it is only over the last 20 to 30 years that their use has become extremely prevalent. Micropiles can be used to support large buildings, bridges, and even provide support of excavations. There are several reasons why I like micropiles as a go-to deep foundation alternative.

Reason #1: Load Testing – Load testing is relatively easy to perform on a micropile because tension load tests can be performed by pulling on the threaded center bar. A reaction frame or reaction piles are not required as the ground acts as the reaction. These tests are consequently quicker to perform and much less expensive than compression load tests on other deep foundations where either reaction piles or reaction blocks are necessary. The pile bond lengths can be adjusted depending on the load test results, saving a client unnecessary cost. Additionally, due to the simplicity of the test, proof testing is often performed on production piles to further confirm pile capacities.

Almost half of the static load tests I have monitored on various pile types throughout my career did not attain their expected capacity. This is why I put the ability to easily load test at the top of this list.

Reason #2: Small Equipment – Equipment used to install micropiles can be small enough to allow installation indoors or in low headroom environments such as beneath bridges or beneath overhead utility lines. The drill rigs are also lighter which can help with drilling adjacent to retaining walls or excavations. This versatility allows micropiles to be used in situations that many other deep foundations can’t.

Reason #3: Can Get Through Anything – Micropiles are a drilled foundation that have the capability to penetrate most obstructions including cobbles, boulders, concrete, and even metal in some cases. Obstructions are a concern for the installation of almost all other non-shallow foundation types including driven piles, drilled shafts, and even ground improvement. When utilizing micropiles on a project, you’ll take comfort in knowing that obstructions should not significantly impact your project and you will not be subject to the associated change orders that other foundation systems would when encountering obstructions.

Reason #4: High Capacity – Micropiles can obtain extremely high capacity in certain bearing conditions through skin friction. Capacities of roughly 500 tons can be obtained by micropiles with bond zones that are embedded into a strong rock. High capacities (up to about 100 tons) are also possible in some dense soils like glacial till.

Reason #5: Versatility – Lastly, micropiles are extremely versatile. They come in many different casing sizes and thicknesses, and the threaded center bar can be as large as almost 4 inches in diameter! A smaller casing can be installed within a larger-diameter exterior casing to increase vertical capacity and moment resistance. They can be installed at a batter to increase lateral load resistance and can be used under both compression and tension. They are ideal in areas where vibrations are a concern and can even be installed through existing bridge abutments to increase load capacity. There really aren’t many instances where micropiles cannot be used.

These are five very strong reasons to use (or at least consider using) micropiles on your next project. However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention some of the drawbacks of micropiles. First, they tend to be one of the most expensive deep foundation types and sometimes casing sizes and wall thicknesses are not readily available. Also, significant spoil is often generated from the drilling and grouting process that may require special disposal. Finally, they take longer to install than other deep foundation types. Because of these reasons, there are many applications where micropiles don’t make sense, but they are certainly one of my go-to foundation types when evaluating a site for deep foundations.

-->

Creating and Maintaining a Leadership Culture

Posted on July 20, 2021

Author: Brett Kay – Director of Civil Engineering Services

In this fast-paced, almost-post-pandemic world, creating and maintaining a leadership culture within an organization has never been more important, more challenging, or more rewarding than it is today. Here are ten keys to establishing and maintaining a leadership culture within a group (in no particular order):

1. Empower staff at all levels: Create an environment where staff feel empowered and are willing to take the lead on projects and tasks. Don’t just empower those who report to you, empower your peers and co-workers at all levels within the company.

2. Commit and follow through: Each time we commit and follow through it builds trust and respect with our staff.

3. Delegate, coach, and mentor: Each of these activities is different, but equally important for staff development.

4. Encourage collaboration: Frequent communication and feedback between project team members and throughout the ranks is essential to the success of a project, daily operations, and a healthy team.

5. Trust, but verify: As staff take on new roles, responsibilities, and tasks, it is important to trust, but verify so they don’t get lost in the storm. Managers should conduct frequent check-ins with staff on progress, schedules, and resource needs.

6. Celebrate the wins (all sizes): Don’t wait to receive the permits or for the check to clear before celebrating the successes of a project. Make time throughout the project to celebrate the wins at a smaller level. Everyone likes feedback.

7. Be fair, honest, and consistent: Don’t play favorites – treat all team members equally and fairly. Recognize that you may need to customize your communication method and delivery for each person, but being honest and transparent builds trust and respect. Staff will be more comfortable and open when they know how you are going to respond, so consistency is key.

8. Mistakes are not failures, they are learning opportunities: Take the uncomfortable deep dive into how and why a project or certain tasks were unsuccessful or struggled with and then discuss it openly and honestly so you and your team can learn from it.

9. Build on people’s strengths: We are all different and bring a variety of skills to the table. Identify what people do best and build on it.

10. Last, but not least, practice what you preach: Actions speak louder than words and people are always watching, so do what you say and say what you do.

The old school mentality of leadership being something that can only develop from years of experience is a thing of the past. If we stand around and wait for staff to become great leaders via the timescale then we will lose important members of our staff and fall behind the competition. Play an active role every day to foster growth and leadership throughout your group. Everybody can be a leader at something and recognizing this and understanding how to use an individual’s strengths to help them grow will create a highly functional team that’s happy, productive, motivated to work together, and committed to success.

 

-->

New Emergency OSHA Standard For Healthcare Facilities

Posted on June 16, 2021

Author: Jeremy Wherren CSP, CHMM, CMQ/OE, Corporate Health and Safety Officer

OSHA announced it will issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect healthcare workers from contracting COVID-19. The standard focuses only on the healthcare industry with workers at highest risk to have contact with someone infected with the virus. The standard also exempts various health care facility settings. For non-exempt facilities, the standard includes the following requirements:

For more information on the ETS see here:  https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets

For all other industries, OSHA also announced new general industry guidance, which is aligned with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance. The guidance is not mandatory and is provided here:   https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework

-->

Top Five Reasons to Hire a Civil Engineer Early for Your Renewable Energy Project

Posted on June 2, 2021

Author: Tony Giunta, PG – Director of Project Development

Throughout the United States, and particularly in New England, developing renewable energy projects can be a challenge. If you’re a renewable energy developer you must be thinking, “But we just elected a pro-renewable energy administration, government incentives abound, and there’s plenty of low-cost investment capital available for the taking”. In other words, it looks like a very favorable time to go hog-wild with development. May I suggest that, before treading too far down the development path, one considers these top 5 reasons to team up with a Civil Engineer early into a renewable energy project.

Reason #5: Although they sometimes catch a bad rap as a seemingly pessimistic and persnickety group (as opposed to developers who are among the most optimistic people on the planet), Civil Engineers bring a pragmatic voice to the table and their presence – or lack thereof – can make or break your project. A Civil Engineer will compare the goals of the developer against cold hard reality. They’ll often perform a “Fatal Flaw” analysis that looks at wetlands, elevation changes, subsurface conditions, potential environmental concerns, and other factors that could seriously derail future development goals. The cost for these services is generally “chump change” compared to avoiding the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in costs related to unforeseen problems arising from having overlooked any site constraints early on.

Reason #4: Everyone wants renewable energy until a project is proposed in “their” community. Then it’s “Sorry, love your idea, but we don’t want it near us!” Experienced Civil Engineers know the lay of the land and can tell you in which communities you’re most likely to succeed and, more importantly, where you’re most likely to get run out of town on a rail! Knowing this information will save you time, cash, and boatloads of agita.

Reason #3: To achieve a successful project, you’ll need federal, state, and local permits. Having worked with the regulators who review these permits is critically important. We’re all human and, as such, are wired in unique ways. An experienced Civil Engineer will often know these regulators and their idiosyncrasies, providing an advantage when it comes time to submit permit applications. Not only will your Civil Engineer guide you in supplying the requested information, they will also help you tailor it in a way that caters to that individual regulator’s review style. Whereas most permits have statutory response deadlines, those deadlines often “reset” each time the agency requires more information. Getting your permit application filled out right the first time can save months of back-and-forth, costly paper shuffling. Done incorrectly, these delays can set your project back an entire construction season.

Reason #2: Like regulators, local land management boards (think planning and zoning boards) also have their own “pet peeves” when it comes to satisfying local ordinances. An experienced Civil Engineer will have both presented to and learned (under fire!) what these boards look for in an approvable application. Getting them the right material early can again save time and money obtaining your needed local approvals.

Reason #1: And finally, we all know that a project lives or dies based on abutter acceptance or opposition to a project. I’ve witnessed first-hand the abutters, not the landowner, having way more sway with local land-management boards on deciding what’s allowed and not allowed on a landowner’s property. Again, an experienced Civil Engineer will work very early and very closely with project abutters to explain exactly what’s proposed. If there are abutter concerns, the Civil Engineer will work to address those concerns before they are entered into the public record at what are often very heated and emotionally-driven public hearings.  Allaying fears before they become publicly pronounced crises can be THE single most important step towards being able to successfully bring your project to realization.

So there you have it, five key and crucial reasons to hire a Civil Engineer early on in the process of planning your renewable energy project. With this understanding of their incredible importance in getting projects approved and built, I suggest you go out and hug a Civil Engineer the next time you meet one (abiding by CDC guidelines, of course)!

-->

Progress and Preservation Can Coexist: Spearheading Redevelopment in Downtown Franklin

Posted on May 18, 2021

By Chris Nadeau, PE, Director of Commercial Services

For those of us who live in New England, driving by blighted mill buildings and vacant downtowns is an all-too-common experience. Of course, it wasn’t always that way. During the Industrial Revolution, New England’s abundant rivers and streams powered those once mighty mills which, during their heyday, led our country and the world in industrial output.

Then, beginning in the 1970s and continuing into the early 21st century, cheap labor and fewer regulations drove New England manufacturers overseas, leaving those quintessential rural mill towns with a lot of open lots, empty buildings, and broken hearts.

Franklin is located in central New Hampshire and is very much a “mill City”. Like others, this once industrial powerhouse was staggered by the closing of its iconic mills and has since struggled to seize upon the next great opportunity that would again restore the vibrancy and opportunities those once bustling mills provided. Tony Giunta, the City’s former Mayor said, “We were struggling to seize upon something to provide a spark that would lead to revitalization of our downtown.” That opportunity finally came knocking via the CATCH Neighborhood Housing project.”

In 2015, CATCH purchased the dilapidated River Bend Mill in downtown Franklin with the intention of redeveloping the former industrial mill into a new affordable workforce housing complex. The River Bend Mill is located within the Franklin Falls Historic District: a 75-acre area that encompasses most of the civic and industrial heart of the City. If revitalization were to occur, it had to begin in this District. As Giunta noted, “For decades, the City of Franklin had worked to encourage outside developers to invest in our downtown. Many projects were proposed, but all failed to make it to completion. We all knew a successful CATCH project would be the spark we needed to start that revitalization fire.”

In the years leading up to this project, the City worked with the nonprofit organization Plan NH to complete a design charrette for the redevelopment of the Franklin Falls Historic District. The City was able to receive feedback from the community about their needs and concerns regarding redevelopment. Among the items discussed was the community’s desire to see progress while retaining the historic appearance of its iconic historical buildings.

To satisfy the communities desires at Riverbend Mill, Nobis Group’s engineers were able to salvage the buildings infrastructure, eliminating the need for building demolition and new construction. Additionally, Nobis’s site design was able to achieve the community’s goals of improving roadways and parking as well as creating green space for recreation and access to the riverfront.

During the early 20th century, a portion of the river was infilled and an addition to the building was constructed on the created surface. Nobis’s geotechnical engineers determined that in these areas of the mill the subsurface conditions were not suitable for construction. Nobis was able to provide recommendations and alternatives to support renovation and construction in these areas using underpinning techniques.

Nobis completed the environmental assessment and hazardous materials abatement achieving the due diligence requirements needed for CATCH to secure the necessary financing. Nobis also successfully completed site engineering and design to meet the objectives of the client including providing solutions to areas of the building where foundations needed improvement.

The successful River Bend Mill redevelopment was beneficial in many ways. The project also achieved many additional goals that the citizens of Franklin hoped to realize as downtown was redeveloped. These goals included attracting people to live in their downtown, improving roadways and traffic, connecting neighborhoods to downtown areas, encouraging uses that relate to the river, and, most importantly, improving downtown Franklin while retaining the history of its buildings and industrial heritage. Mayor Giunta summed it up this way, “The primary benefit of restoring this former mill was to provide badly needed affordable workforce housing options for the community. But, on a grander scale, tens of thousands of people witnessed a cold lifeless building coming back to life. It went from eyesore to grandeur. It was a very visible reminder that our City had turned a significant corner and like this CATCH project, our downtown was coming back to life.”

Subsequently, the restoration of River Bend Mill (now renamed the Franklin Light and Power Building) has inspired stakeholders to evaluate other underutilized industrial complexes within the City for their redevelopment potential. Currently, a major developer is revitalizing the abutting Stanley Mill – Franklin’s largest downtown mill. This project is a mixed-use, multifaceted rehabilitation and will be the largest single investment in a downtown redevelopment in Franklin’s history. This, along with other on-going restoration projects, will encourage business and industry development, job growth, increased tax base, and population growth. “Clearly the City of Franklin is experiencing a renaissance,” notes Giunta, “but that renaissance can all be traced back to CATCH – the one developer who took a chance and invested in a City with great potential. I don’t know if they ever realized their investment “spark” would lead to our redevelopment fire!”

The members of the CATCH River Bend Mill revitalization project team included:

Warrenstreet Architects, Architect and Landscape Architect

Nobis Group, Civil, Environmental, and Geotechnical Engineer

TF Moran, Structural Engineer

Bonnette, Page, and Stone, General Contractor

New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority and USDA Rural Development, Funding Agencies

-->

We Have the Way, but Do We Have the Will?

Posted on February 23, 2021

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development

We are constantly bombarded with bad news. A pandemic hijacked 2020. We are told our elections were manipulated by sinister powers. With our continued reliance on fossil fuels, the world inches closer to a run-away climate meltdown.

But amongst all this doom and gloom, there are glimmers of hope. Extremely effective vaccines capable of eradicating COVID are currently being administered. And human ingenuity continues to deliver devices capable of creating enormous amounts of clean, carbon-free renewable energy.

The latest entry into this new world of mega-producing energy devices is General Electric’s colossal Haliade-X wind turbine. It has a wingspan of two football fields and produces 13 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough energy from one single unit to power up to 12,000 homes! In comparison, the Haliade-X produces nearly 30 times the amount of power generated by the first commercial wind turbines installed during the early 1990s. And just when you thought this technology had matured, there are already plans to build units that will dwarf this present-day giant. As the saying goes, “success breeds competition”… bring it on!

We New Englanders have an incredible opportunity to make significant reductions in our overall global carbon footprint. Vast amounts of wind energy resources have been discovered off our coastline. How much wind energy? Enough to satisfy all of New England’s electrical needs, and more… a lot more! Most importantly, these offshore wind resources are reliable, meaning they will produce maximum output nearly 70% of the time.

When we’re able to make renewable energy contributions at this scale, there’s real hope that we actually can blunt the effects of climate change. However, the issue remains – will we fast track this technology? Or will we oppose efforts to deploy this significant tool in our arsenal of renewable energy solutions to reduce carbon emissions?

With our self-imposed red tape regulations and “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) judicial challenges, current estimates are that these wind resources will take five to ten years to receive approval. We need to do all we can to speed up our regulatory process and get these renewable resources on-line. We have the technology to save the planet, now all we need is the will to get it done!

-->

I Consider Myself an Environmentalist, But Not in My Town!

Posted on September 22, 2020

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
Over my career in the renewable energy sector, I’ve been to countless public hearings in front of planning boards, zoning boards, and City councils. As I walk around and talk to people before these meetings start, most everyone in the room typically describe themselves as devout “conservationists” and “environmentalists”. They proudly proclaim they want to stop global warming so that they can pass along a better planet to their children and grandchildren. Then the meeting starts and these very same attendees supporting “anything green” transform into opponents staunchly against the development of the proposed renewable energy project in “their” town!

As you listen to public testimony, you often hear stories of how local families have grown accustomed to living beside open fields and wooded lots and how, over the years, they’ve enjoyed hiking, sledding, and walking their dogs – albeit on someone else’s property. And now, because that greedy property owner has the audacity to propose a solar farm, the once cozy relationship between landowner and neighbor quickly falls apart. It’s quite sad to see those who had always pretended to be “good friends” with that property owner get up in public and say things like, “How dare the landowner (who, by proposing a renewable energy project, is actually doing something to combat climate change) take away my rights to continue enjoying open lands just to install silly solar panels!”. And then, the inevitable hypocritical killer line of all time, “I consider myself an environmentalist, but this is ridiculous!”.

The reality is that scenarios like these are no longer an anomaly, they’ve become the norm. Regulatory boards have forgotten that property owners have rights too! Just because locals have become “accustomed” to utilizing someone else’s property for their own pleasure and enjoyment doesn’t mean they get to decide how the actual owner uses it in the future. Or do they?

More often than not, I’m seeing owners’ property rights challenged and renewable energy projects denied. If local residents can’t derail projects via intimidation and aggression towards regulatory boards, they introduce petitions at the ballot box and essentially change laws to stop renewable energy projects.

The bottom line is this. If you “talk the talk” about caring for our environment, then you have to “walk the walk” and support these renewable energy projects. Remember that rallying call, “Think Globally, Act Locally”. Well, now you have an opportunity to make change locally that will have a dramatic, positive global impact. We must support local renewable energy projects and support those landowners who are doing the right thing by allowing their lands to be used to save the planet. If we’re going to leave this world a better place, then we need more clean renewable energy and less hypocrisy!

-->

Public Meeting and Local Municipalities Adjustments During a Pandemic

Posted on July 15, 2020

By Sean Colella, PE, Project Engineer
It’s safe to say that “business as usual” is a distant future that we can only hope comes back into our lives this year or early next year. These are challenging times for us all, and there’s no denying it. Most of us are required to work from home, turning dining room tables into office space and possibly sharing the house with your spouse who is also working from home. Those who were deemed essential workers found themselves with extremely tight health restrictions when PPE was in high demand and in short supply. Not to mention the additional stress and consequences of isolation for children and adults.

Now that states are starting to open industries in discrete phases, let’s take a look back at how state agencies and local municipalities responded to the health crisis and quickly adapted to continue reviewing projects and therefore promoting development in their respective cities and towns.

For as long as I can remember, preparing for an application submittal to the local municipality felt like preparing for your master’s thesis. In some municipalities, it was required to submit more than ten (10) copies of the site plan application, supporting documents, maps and full size (24”x36”) Site Plan drawings. The majority of our Site Plan drawings incorporate ten or more pages, the amount of paper starts to accumulate …. fast! This process is time consuming and utilizes valuable time and effort from our engineers, not to mention these packages typically are hand delivered directly to the municipality. This means even more time away from design efforts.

Due to the ongoing pandemic, the public offices immediately followed the required actions mandated by the governing bodies in Massachusetts and New Hampshire respectively. This meant closing their offices to the public with some municipalities still closed to this day. This effectively forced engineers and developers to find new methods to submit applications and/or design drawings, hence the advent of electronic submittals. Electronic submittals, in PDF formats, are more efficient, economical and considered complete as long as all documents are accounted for. This creates an advantage for consultants as we can now respond and submit materials the same day, sometimes in hours, to keep the applications on schedule with the planning or zoning boards.

In times when social distancing and self-quarantine was the new normal, it would have been a risky decision to meet with the applicants/clients personally to gather original signatures on the application materials, as was typically required by the municipalities. Original signatures were challenging enough, not to mention if the applicant was on holiday, travelling, or lived out of state. This specific requirement would often delay the local application if the board decided it was incomplete, pushing the schedule up to one month in some areas. With the technology we have at our fingertips today, application signatures can be obtained in a matter of hours. We owe a great deal to the local municipalities who have been flexible with their standard requirements.

Perhaps the most critical item during this whole application process was, and still is, planning/zoning board meetings and public hearings where abutters and residents can voice their concerns or comments for or against the proposed project. Due to the state mandated limit on social gatherings, the municipalities had to act quickly! Some did flawlessly, moving to virtual meeting platforms such as GoToMeeting, Zoom, or Facebook Live. Others did not move to the virtual platform as efficiently, and some of our project schedules were directly impacted. The public meetings were still noticed by the city or town to the direct abutters and residents in advance of the meeting and a media format was prioritized for public to weigh-in on the projects. It was, and will always be, a right of the abutter to have a voice in their respective city or town when it comes to development or redevelopment in their direct neighborhood.

A clear advantage to the virtual meeting platform is the overall efficiency with which the applicants, developers and engineers are able to move through the meetings. No more travel to and from the town offices, which in some locations are over an hour away. These days, we can log in to the meeting platform for our application to be heard, give a quick project summary, and field any questions from the public or city/town board members. All this can typically be accomplished in an hour or less, depending on the complexity of the project and the knowledge of the particular city/town boards.

It was common procedure for the local municipalities to gather comments from all town departments including engineering, water department, DPW, conservation commission, zoning board of appeals and planning board, to name a few. These comments were consolidated in a single formal document which was then mailed or emailed to the consulting engineer, owner and applicant(s) for review. This was often very time consuming and did not allow the consulting engineer ample time to revise the Site Plan drawings or draft a formal response letter to the local municipality in advance of the next meeting. With the transition to formal comments being received via email, there is now a huge advantage to respond with a much quicker turnaround time, therefore limiting the number of meetings and public hearings required to approve the application, tightening the projected permit schedule(s).

As with all transitions, there were bound to be some growing pains as a direct result of the COVID-19 situation. As was anticipated, there were some technology challenges, whether it was human error, unfamiliar with virtual platforms, or simple lack of technology in some remote towns of New Hampshire. Owners, applicants and consulting engineers showed extreme patience during this recent transition period. We are definitely trending in the right direction and with each new passing week we are seeing more progress and better procedures within the local municipalities. Nothing has rung truer to me than the current attitude and corresponding statement, “We are all in this together.” So, let’s make the most of this situation and strive for a little progress every day.

-->

The Importance of Collaboration in Land Development

Posted on June 9, 2020

By Sean McDowell, PE, Project Engineer
Collaboration efforts should be made at the onset of planning a project. All the major players should be part of the decision-making process including owners, architects, engineers, and contractors. By getting the team in place early on, you will be able to agree on the details of the project and plan for issues that arise.

Waiting to include major players in the process could increase total project costs, delay your project, or even keep the project from ever happening. Let’s run through a few examples to illustrate the importance of collaboration in land development.

Example 1: The owner purchases a property, then hires a civil engineer to survey the lot and begin the local permitting process. It might have been in the owner’s best interest to invest $1,000 for a civil engineer to prepare a due diligence report on the property prior to purchase. The due diligence work may have determined several local zoning variances required for the development, the property covered with wetlands, it is home to several endangered species, and/or the property has poorly drained soils. Had these issues been identified upfront, maybe the owner would have passed on the property or factored these land development hurdles into the purchase price.

Example 2: The owner expresses a tight construction schedule for redevelopment of an elementary school. The construction must be completed before school resumes in September. The contractor was on board during the design process and informs the team that due to COVID, manufacturing and shipping for certain items, like a transformer, is taking longer than usual. The design team provides the transformer information to the contractor before the design is 100% complete to place an early order. The order was placed 6 weeks earlier than usual and keeps the construction schedule on target for a September opening.

Beyond just project planning, land development is a competitive industry. Each stakeholder tends to have their own agenda, which might include making a name for themselves, earning profits for the company, or reducing liability. Team members are frequently more interested in meeting short-term individual and project goals rather than long-term end goals.

Most land development projects follow the traditional design-bid-build method. This often defines how to work on individual segments of the project but does not tie the individual effects together cohesively. This gives team members different, and often narrow, perspectives that foster adversarial solutions. Each member of the team is forced to compete with the others to earn a profit.

Don’t think short-sighted when it comes to your project. From initial project planning through construction can take years on a single project. When teams work well together, they may choose to work together again and again, potentially lasting your entire career. Use a long-term mentality and build strong relationships with other members of the team.

Just knowing the benefits of collaboration won’t improve the outcome of your land development projects, it’s time to act!

-->

Due Diligence for Property Transfer

Posted on May 19, 2020

By Alyssa Epstein, Project Scientist
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is the first step in completing environmental due diligence on a prospective property and is generally completed prior to purchase or refinancing. Sometimes this assessment is required by a bank to protect their investment prior to issuing a loan.

The standards for a Phase I ESA are established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The assessment includes review of Federal, State, and local databases and records, a site inspection, and interviews with owners, occupants, neighbors, and/or local government officials to identify if any environmental liability from existing contamination or a potential release of contaminants exists at the Site. These would be considered recognized environmental conditions (RECs).

Results of the Phase I ESA drive future environmental assessments. No further assessment is required if insignificant or no RECs are identified; however, an ASTM Phase II investigation would be warranted if significant RECs are present. The Phase II includes intrusive investigations such as advancement of soil borings to install monitoring wells and evaluate subsurface conditions, laboratory testing of soil and groundwater samples to determine actual levels of contamination, and/or geophysical testing (ground penetrating radar, metal detector, etc.) to identify subsurface structures (i.e. underground storage tanks or vaults) that may be sources for contamination.

Analytical testing – Pros and Cons
Analytical testing should be tailored to site-specific RECs to determine which compounds to include for analysis. Laboratory results will help further determine liability due to environmental conditions by quantifying levels of specific contaminants; however, know that specific compound concentrations may trigger additional site investigations, remedial action requirements, and involvement by the State regulatory agencies. This is often a Catch-22, as the buyer often wants to know exactly what they’re getting into, but the seller doesn’t want to be open to additional risk/remediation costs should the sale not go through. It’s not uncommon for the seller to limit Phase II investigations including laboratory testing since State-agency involvement often REQUIRES additional and costly remediation and navigation through the state regulations and sometimes the presence of contamination devalues the property (although this is not as common as it was 10 or 20 years ago). Be sure to work with your environmental professional to help leverage the appropriate level of pre-sale investigations that helps both protect you and moves the sale forward.

Additional Considerations – Site Buildings
Aside from potential soil and groundwater contamination, hazardous building materials may be present within building materials; therefore, a hazardous building materials survey (HBMS) may be warranted if a property already has a building. Municipalities often require an HBMS prior to issuing a demolition or renovation permit, so performance of an HBMS should be considered prior to site redevelopment if major changes to the building structure is planned.

The HBMS will locate and quantify hazardous materials within the building envelope. These typically include asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, mold, and other universal wastes present in the building(s). The intent of the HBMS is to identify materials where regulations prescribe specific handling and disposal requirements to protect human and environmental health. Abatement and removal of these materials can be costly; therefore, results of the HBMS may affect overall project budget and influence sale price.

Often materials included in the HBMS are misunderstood. Here are some common misconceptions for materials typically identified:

The presence of environmental contamination and hazardous building materials can add significant cost to your site development or renovation project. Due diligence and proper pre-characterization can help limit liability and costly change orders, and pre-planning can help keep a project on schedule.

-->

Surfing the Pandemic Wave: Maintaining Workplace Compliance with EHS During Crisis – Part 4

Posted on May 13, 2020

A Recommended Pandemic Planning Approach for Business

By Jeremy Wherren, CSP, CHMM, CMQ/OE, Corporate Health and Safety Officer
The amount of COVID-19 information and guidance for your business to follow and monitor can be overwhelming. Especially if your business operates in multiple geographic regions by which there are distinctly different guidance or requirements for your operations to adhere to. If your business has not developed a pandemic preparedness plan in some form, it should. The plan provides your business a framework which can help be prepared during times of confusion.

The next two posts outline a planning framework which could help your business maintain a roadmap to better manage changing requirements affecting your operations to prevent COVID-19 spread (or any future pandemic) to your employees and customers/visitors.

While this framework does not constitute all the elements of a formal written pandemic preparedness plan (e.g. communications planning, incident management, roles and responsibilities etc.) This framework provides a backbone for your business’s formal written plans to manage pandemic preparedness and response.

This will be presented in a stepped approach which also includes an example document to use as a guide for your business planning. The primary steps of this process include the following:

1. Identify Essential Operations from Non-Essential Operations
2. Conduct a Risk Assessment
3. Establish Applicable Control Measures
4. Develop a Staged Approach for Control Measure Implementation

This post will present steps one through three. Step four along with an example, which will include an example document to use as a guide for your pandemic planning, will be presented in a follow-up post.
To best understand how this planning framework is designed, it is important to understand the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) Pandemic Interval Framework.

Introduction to the Pandemic Interval Framework
The World Health Organization (WHO) also uses a pandemic influenza phase framework, which can be used to describe and communicate worldwide disease progression and can provide a general view of the emerging situation around the world.

In the United States, the CDC created the Pandemic Intervals Network designed to align with the WHO framework. For the purposes of planning for potential pandemics, the six intervals (Investigation, Recognition, Initiation, Acceleration, Deceleration, and Preparation) represent events that occur along a hypothetical pandemic curve. These intervals are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Hypothetical Pandemic Curve


Graphic Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/national-strategy/intervals-framework.html

As we have seen with COVID-19, pandemic curve shape (correlative to impact) can differ depending on the geographic area in which they occur, population demographics, population density, climate, social preventative tactics utilized preemptively ahead of community spread in a given area, and many other factors.

The CDC intervals are flexible enough to accommodate pandemic progression to allow for local, state, and federal actions appropriate to region specific conditions (e.g. a state or locality with cases versus a state or locality with no cases but that is close to an area with cases). These intervals, in combination with monitoring state and local guidance, can be aligned with how and when a business should ramp up or ramp down its preparedness contingencies. Below is a stepped approach to develop and establish a planning framework to achieve this goal.

Step 1 – Identify Essential Operations from Nonessential Operations
Even if a governmental order deems your business essential or nonessential, chances are internally there is a hierarchy of operational need to sustain your business. It is important to assess your operations into essential and nonessential buckets for pandemic planning purposes. This will allow the business to prioritize its operational needs and establish applicable measures to help keep essential operations sustained for as long as possible. During this operational review, existing work and emergency procedures to maintain critical operations should also be evaluated and ensure competent staff depth with knowledge to operate essential operations is adequate.

Step 2 – Conduct a Risk Assessment
It is important for each employer to conduct a risk assessment of its employees to understand the hazards and exposure potential. To assist employers, the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration published Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19 to help employers prepare the workplace. On May 10, 2020, WHO published risk-based guidance closely aligned with OSHA which may be helpful to businesses. The level of risk depends on a variety of factors including industry type and the need for contact within 6 feet of potentially infected persons. To help employers determine appropriate precautions, OSHA divided job tasks into four risk exposure levels: very high, high, medium, and lower risk whereas WHO does not include a very high level.

Once the risks are ascertained for employees in the types of operations identified and grouped in Step 1 above, applicable control measures can be established for each risk level identified. OSHA believes that most businesses will fall within low and medium level exposures.

Step 3 – Establish Applicable Control Measures
Once the risks to your business are established, applicable control measures need to be applied to mitigate the risks. There is a plethora of informational sources available to establish control measures from. Below are some recommended publicly available sources.

1. Review your state and local reopening requirements. Align your measures with those plans. The National Governors Association website is a great resource to see a high level of all state reopening strategies.
2. OSHA: COVID-19 Control and Prevention Website
3. WHO: Considerations for Public Health and Social Measures in the Workplace in the Context of COVID-19
4. American Industrial Hygiene Association: COVID-19 Resource Page with Multi Sector Guidance Documents
5. CDC: COVID-19 Planning and Prep Guidance for COVID-19

Step 4 – Create a Staged Approach for Control Measure Implementation
With Steps 1-3 completed, there now should be a hierarchy of control measures applied to identified essential and nonessential operations with applicable control measures assigned. This information can be organized in a staged framework in alignment with the intervals of the pandemic. Step four along with an example, which will include an example document to use as a guide for your pandemic planning, will be presented in a follow-up post soon.

Should your business (small to large) need assistance with pandemic planning, COVID-19 safety procedures, risk assessments, or related EHS compliance support, Nobis Group is here to help. Please reach out to me anytime at jwherren@nobis-group.com should you have any questions or needs.

-->

Deciphering Geotechnical Borings and Subsurface Exploration Results

Posted on May 5, 2020

By Justin Vanotti, Staff Engineer
A geotechnical subsurface exploration program is crucial to any construction project because subsurface conditions are highly variable and can change drastically over short distances. Moreover, subsurface conditions can drive the design of a foundation system. For example, you would not want to construct typical shallow spread footings on compressible soils that will be susceptible to excessive settlement. Likewise, knowing the depth of fill or topsoil at a site is important; you do not want to be removing more than necessary as it can become costly. This information would be presented in boring logs, typically completed by a field engineer on-site. It is important to know and understand what the boring logs and subsurface results are telling you. This means recognizing where strata transitions may occur and what those strata or soil layers consist of. There are several ways to decipher subsurface logs and having a better understanding of them will help improve the design of the structure, roadway, or other construction projects where earthwork will occur. Below are some of the ways subsurface data can be analyzed and, hopefully, make it easier the next time someone sends a subsurface boring log your way. It’s a lot more than just dirt!

First, it is crucial to review historical geotechnical data of the site. This includes existing boring logs from the site or nearby sites, or possibly a surficial geology map of the area. Sometimes fill, granular soils, or possibly even glacial till can visually appear similar. Reviewing historical geotechnical data helps introduce you to what may have been previously encountered at the site and recorded in the boring logs. It can also be helpful to understand what past construction, if any, was performed. This can be useful when determining a depth of fill material and knowing where natural soils are located. Once you understand the types of subsurface soils that may have been encountered previously, you will be better able to understand what type of soil may be present at your site.

Next, the blow counts recorded in a boring log can also be good indicators of soil transitions. Geotechnical soil samples are collected by driving a hollow split-spoon (metal cylinder) into the soils with a 140-pound hammer. The number of hammer-strikes over 6-inches is counted and recorded. Generally, soil samples are collected over 18- to 24-inches, so a sample typically has three to four blow counts. For example, a sample driven about 24 inches could be as follows: 3, 4, 13, and 11. From these numbers, it appears the first twelves inches were softer, requiring only three and four blows, respectively, to move the split spoon 6 inches. Conversely, the next 12 inches were denser, indicated by the increase in blows needed to move the sampler 6 inches. This could mean there is a soil transition after the first 12-inches. Soil transitions are not always hard transitions as described in the example above but can occur gradually over depth. It is also important to pay attention to notes included in boring logs. Notes about wash color change, drilling action, or possible drilling fluid loss can provide clues regarding the subsurface conditions.

Soil color is also useful in evaluating soil transitions. For instance, natural sands may be lighter in color, while fill soils are often darker in nature due to presence
of organics and debris.

Having a photograph of each sample can be tremendously helpful. Most field staff will take a photo of soil and rock samples with a measuring tape and a jar lid with sample information to identify where the sample came from and at what depth. This is most utilized in the Quality Assurance and Quality Control phase of producing geotechnical data. Recently, the geotechnical engineers at Nobis have been providing sample photos for some projects with our geotechnical data as it allows clients to view a sample as it is collected in the field. The photos help clients see the color of the sample and in some cases the different grain sizes of the soil.

Besides soil strata, it is also important to have accurate information on depth to groundwater. As water can drastically affect how soil behaves, it can also drastically change the design of a foundation system. Construction is generally performed in dry soil conditions, so if groundwater is relatively shallow it can have a significant effect on the dewatering measures required at the site. Determining seasonal high groundwater is also a good indicator as to how high in a subsurface profile groundwater can reach. The oxygen in groundwater can react with and oxidize soil, resulting in orange staining of soil. This orange staining can be a good determination of the seasonal high groundwater level. The orange staining can sometimes appear as striping or intermittent spotting, called mottling or mottled soil, which is also a good indicator of a seasonal groundwater table.

One of the most direct ways to help decipher subsurface data is from laboratory testing analyses. Generally, particle size analysis or a sieve will be the easiest way to determine how much fine material (fines) versus coarse material is in a sample. If a sample has high fines, such as a clay or silt, there are other lab testing analyses that can be performed to help determine the physical properties of that sample. For example, a clay sample could be submitted for compressibility and/or strength testing. Knowing such information helps when designing a foundation system as its engineering properties can be more accurately modeled.

As is the nature of the business, subsurface conditions can vary significantly over short distances. Therefore, it is important to accurately interpret the results of a geotechnical exploration program. Utilizing the several ways highlighted above can help make it easier to assess subsurface material at a site.

-->

Surfing the Pandemic Wave: Maintaining Workplace Compliance with EHS During Crisis – Part 2

Posted on April 14, 2020

OSHA’s Current Stance on COVID-19 for Worker Exposure, Respiratory Protection, Illness Recording, and Medical Surveillance

By Jeremy Wherren, CSP, CHMM, CMQ/OE, Corporate Health and Safety Officer
This is Part 2 of a series intended to provide some practical guidance on worker safety and health and other workplace compliance practices to help you and your workplace get through these unprecedented times. Last week’s topic included compliance considerations with Home-Based Worker safety.

This week’s topic provides an update and perhaps some clarity regarding how the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is addressing workplace hazard assessment, and regulatory issues such as respiratory protection, recording work related illnesses, and medical surveillance required under several OSHA standards.

Worker Risk Assessment with COVID-19 Exposure
Prior to making decisions about how your workers are to be protected from COVID-19 exposure, it is important for each employer to conduct a risk assessment of its employees to understand the hazards and exposure potential. To assist employers, OSHA has issued guidance to assess the risk of occupational exposure to COVID-19. The level of risk depends on a variety of factors including industry type and the need for contact within 6 feet of potentially infected persons. To help employers determine appropriate precautions, OSHA divided job tasks into four risk exposure levels: very high, high, medium, and lower risk. Workers such as those in healthcare settings, first responders, mortuary workers, medical transport etc. may be characterized at the high or very high-risk levels due to their potential exposure to people infected with COVID-19.

OSHA states within the guidance that most American workers likely fall in the lower exposure risk (caution) or medium exposure risk levels. The guidance summarizes that medium exposure workers include those who may have contact with the general public (e.g., schools, high-population-density work environments, some high-volume retail settings), including individuals returning from locations with widespread COVID-19 transmission. Low exposure risk (Caution) jobs are those that do not require contact with people known to be, or suspected of being, infected with COVID-19 nor frequent close contact with (i.e., within 6 feet of) the general public. Workers in this category have minimal occupational contact with the public and other coworkers. Once the risks to your workers are understood, appropriate controls for safe work practices should be considered for use. Safety practices and controls for COVID-19 have been widely published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and a variety of governmental entities. In late March, OSHA published Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19 to help employers make sufficient preparations for the work place.

Respiratory Protection
OSHA regulates respiratory protection in the workplace under 29 CFR 1910.134 for general industry, and the standard for the construction industry 29 CFR 1926.103 are identical to those set forth in the general industry standard. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, employers have had to face challenges in maintaining compliance with this standard. For example, non-healthcare workers may have had to wear N-95 filtering face piece respirators (FFRs) for other hazards (dusts etc.) before COVID-19 came along, but now these forms of personal protective equipment are hard to find due to market demand for the health care industry (and justifiably so). Public health and governmental entities have issued guidance or advisories for people to wear face masks in public to protect from the spread of the COVID-19 virus. In the past couple weeks, OSHA has issued some public announcements and guidance to help work-places cope with compliance to these issues. Before we dissect OSHA’s position, it’s good to understand what OSHA considers a face piece respirator versus a face mask.

What is a filtering facepiece respirator (FFR)? It is important to understand what an FFR is when applying the respiratory protection standard. An FFR removes contaminants from the air as a negative pressure particulate respirator with a filter as an integral part of the facepiece or with the entire facepiece composed of the filtering medium. Dust masks, including N95 masks, and types of surgical masks are types of FFRs. A home-made or other sewn face mask, although with similar design intent is currently not recognized as an FFR by OSHA.

What is OSHA’s position regarding the use of FFRs during the COVID-19 crisis? On April 3rd 2020, OSHA issued two enforcement memoranda which provides guidance for employers with workers exposed to other respiratory hazards impacted by the FFR shortage resulting from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Within those memos, OSHA has recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented shortages in PPE supplies and issued enforcement guidance to use of respiratory protection equipment certified under standards of other countries or jurisdictions to help employers legally order FFRs from different sources, this includes use of homemade masks recommended by the CDC as a “last resort” option. The other memo expanded use and reuse guidance of N-95 respirators to all work places.

On April 8th, 2020 OSHA issued another enforcement memo stating that OSHA will exercise enforcement discretion regarding fit-testing requirements of FFRs, such as N-95 respirators, to all work places through this public health crisis, previously this was only applied to the health care industry.

OSHA is now exercising discretion in the enforcement of the respiratory standard regarding the use of FFRs. It is important to recognize that OSHA expects all employers to make good-faith efforts through this public health crisis to comply with the requirements of the respiratory protection standard and to follow the steps provided in the enforcement memoranda.

Employer Responsibility for Recording COVID-19 Illnesses
On April 10th 2020, OSHA issued enforcement guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this memo, OSHA maintains its policy that the healthcare industry, emergency response organizations (e.g., emergency medical, firefighting, and law enforcement services), and correctional institutions must record COVID-19 illnesses deemed work related in accordance with injury and illness recordkeeping requirements under 29 CFR 1904, and is exercising discretion to require other employers to make the same work-relatedness determinations, except where: there is objective evidence that a COVID-19 case may be work-related; and the evidence was reasonably available to the employer. OSHA is intending that this guidance will help employers not have to mitigate COVID-19 illnesses of an employee from community-based transmission circumstances. Employers required to log injuries and illness should continue to follow the requirements of 29 CFR 1904 in all other work related injury or illness situations.

Medical Surveillance
At the time of publication of this blog, OSHA has not issued out any enforcement guidance regarding an employer’s requirement to provide medical surveillance or clearances as required under several standards including the respiratory protection standard. This has left employers to balance decision making based on risks to maintain compliance with applicable regulations and monitoring of potential employee exposures in the workplace, with the risk of exposing an employee to COVID-19 transmission in a medical environment such as a hospital or clinic. I posed this question to OSHA through their online “Ask OSHA” portal, and they responded that OSHA is in the process of addressing many issues related to COVID-19 and they are collaborating with others on this issue and public guidance will be updated, as appropriate.

If your workplace is facing challenges in meeting the intent of OSHA standards such as respiratory protection please review the enforcement memoranda linked within this blog and frequently go to the OSHA COVID-19 website for regular updates on this matter. Should you require assistance interpreting how OSHA standards and the recent enforcement memoranda affect your business, or how to conduct risk assessments, Nobis Group is here to assist your business with such issues, please contact us anytime.

-->

Surfing the Pandemic Wave: Maintaining Workplace Compliance with EHS During Crisis – Part 1

Posted on April 9, 2020

Home Based Work Safety Considerations

By Jeremy Wherren, CSP, CHMM, CMQ/OE, Corporate Health and Safety Officer
As we all adjust our business operations to this crisis, there are a litany of things for us to consider, and each day priorities change as we pivot to an everchanging situation. Worker safety and health are one of, if not our greatest, priorities confronting us today. In the coming weeks, I will be providing some practical guidance on worker safety and health and other workplace compliance practices to help you and your workplace get through these unprecedented times.

This week’s topic includes compliance considerations with Home-Based Worker safety.

It is important for all employers who have employees working from home to consider work practices to prevent accidents in the home. As of the writing of this blog post, according to NBC News approximately 272 million American’s are subject to “stay-at-home” or shelter-in-place” orders due to the Corona Virus Pandemic. This has required most employees to work remotely from home, thereby transforming their study, garage, or dining room table to a home office.

What’s OSHA’s Take on Home-Based Work?
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration currently does not have any regulatory standards concerning employee work from home or telecommuting. However, on February 25 2000, OSHA did issue Directive CPL 2-0.125 for Home-Based Worksites. Within this Directive, OSHA defines Home Offices and Home-Based Worksites. A Home-Based Worksite includes any areas of an employee’s personal residence where the employee performs work, whereas a Home Office includes only office work activities in a home-based worksite such as typing or using equipment – computer or file cabinet etc.

OSHA also maintains specific policies for Home Offices compared to Home-Based Worksites. OSHA will not conduct inspections of Home Offices, nor will it hold employers liable for employees’ home offices and does not expect employers to inspect the home offices of their employees. For Home-Based Worksites, OSHA will only conduct inspections when OSHA receives a complaint or referral that indicates that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists, including reports of a work-related fatality.

So, are employers off the hook from OSHA regulations and Home-Based Work?
Not completely, employers are responsible for in-home worksites for hazards caused by materials, equipment, or work processes which the employer provides or requires to be used in an employee’s home. Also, employers who are required to keep records of work-related injuries and illnesses will continue to be responsible for keeping such records, regardless of whether the injuries occur in the factory, in a home office, or elsewhere, as long as they are work-related and meet the recordability criteria of 29 CFR Part 1904. Work related injuries could include musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) related to poor office design or electric shock from company provided equipment etc. requiring to be recorded on the OSHA 300 log.

What are some key things we can do to prevent Home-Based work injuries?

-->

Avoiding Renewable Energy Lease Pitfalls

Posted on February 25, 2020

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
For those living in congested areas throughout New England, it’s hard to imagine that only a few short decades ago most of the Northeast was mainly farmland. Although some local farms have managed to survive, for the most part large open acreage landowners have only been able to preserve their undeveloped parcels by either receiving conservation grants or by taking advantage of special property tax exemptions.

A relatively new opportunity has now come before many of these large acreage open field landholders in the form of renewable energy land leases. If you fall into this category and have been approached by a renewable energy developer offering a lease option to develop a project on your land, here are a few tips to consider before you sign on the bottom line.

Give yourself an out. Realize that before you see any solar panels or wind turbines on your property, renewable energy projects take time to get through the many hoops associated with their development. In most cases, you won’t be offered any lease payments until the project moves to “Notice to Proceed” or “NTP”. The reason for this is even though no physical activity is taking place on your fields, the developer is spending significant amounts of capital to secure those all-important permits. That said, if your project hasn’t received NTP after two years, then it probably never will. Whatever that mutually agreed upon drop dead date is, insist upon language that makes the contract “null and void” should that date come and go without an NTP or the developer must begin lease payments regardless of where they are in the permitting process.

Make crystal clear who’s responsible for taxes. Your renewable energy project will undoubtedly increase your property tax assessment (and in some cases significantly so). Most developers will assume responsibility for any additional tax burden levied by the taxing authority. Ensure it’s clear you, the property owner, will only be responsible for paying a pre-determined tax amount. Also spell out what occurs should the lessee default on their tax payment. Remember, you’re the property owner and YOU are always responsible for paying your tax bill regardless of whether or not your lessee pays you the agreed upon amount. Ensure legal mechanisms are in place for you to be able to recover your money quickly should a default occur.

Returning the site back to original condition. Although lease agreements typically run 20 to 30 years, there will come a time when all that infrastructure will need to go. Your lease agreement should clearly state the lessee is fully responsible for all costs and labor associated with restoring your property back to its original pre-existing condition. There should also be language stating from where those reserved decommissioning funds will be derived (i.e. bond, escrow account, etc.).

A plug for lawyers. Finally, spend the upfront money and have an experienced renewable energy land-lease attorney review your lease agreement before you ever place your John Hancock on the dotted line. It will be money well spent and, in many instances, you may even get the energy developer to reimburse you for those legal expenses.

Now that all your “t’s” are crossed and your “i’s” are dotted, feel confident that you (and your heirs) can go forth and produce renewable energy without having to deal with contractual nightmares years down the road.

-->

Evaluating Long Term Value vs. Short term Cost Savings in Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration

Posted on January 31, 2020

By Al Jones, PE, Director of Geotechnical Services
Developers and Owners are often trying to reduce costs in every way possible and who can blame them? One way to cut costs is to minimize the geotechnical design by reducing the subsurface exploration program. While this provides some short-term savings, it ignores the value of a thorough geotechnical investigation and adds considerable risk to your project.

We’ll often be asked, “Can the borings be completed in one day instead of two?” A thin subsurface exploration program might save time and money in the beginning of a project, but often, this decision will result in a more conservative design. This approach doesn’t allow you to evaluate all possible design options, and you could be adding unnecessary construction costs like pouring more concrete for a larger foundation you never needed.

In addition, the lack of information gathered from the limited investigation may result in a significant change order during construction to address unanticipated conditions, which will be significantly more costly than just completing a more comprehensive exploration. It’s cheaper to spend the money on a few more days of drilling than to have a million-dollar change order for blasting due to high bedrock conditions that were never discovered due to a limited number of borings.

Every project requires a different level of effort for the geotechnical exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions at each site is especially prominent in the Northeast. I’ve been a geotechnical engineer for over 25 years and I am still surprised by variations in subsurface conditions at some sites. Perhaps it might be fill that looks like natural soils, perched groundwater that is mistaken for the actual groundwater table, or assumed bedrock that may be just a large boulder. To ensure there are no surprises, rarely should a project in the Northeast be getting by on one-day of drilling, except for the smallest of projects.

So, what should an Owner or Developer do? Find a geotechnical engineering firm that will provide you with the most complete and cost effective design. This will save you from the pains of increasing costs and project delays. Here’s how:

First, compare competitive proposals from your geotechnical consultants and evaluate how they align with your project’s needs. Let’s say your new facility is proposed to be built on undeveloped land where no historical information of the subsurface exists. Firm A’s proposal calls for multiple days of explorations and rock coring, while Firm B’s calls for only a couple of shallow 20-foot borings. It would be more beneficial to hire Firm A and complete a more comprehensive investigation that provides an accurate picture of the subsurface profile.

Next, investigate the experience and qualifications of each competing firm. They should have experience working on your type of site and will have insight into the challenges that your design may encounter. Good firms have a history of working with design teams to understand the planned development and will prepare detailed scope of services that ensure your design needs are met. This should all be illustrated in their proposal.

Finally, don’t be afraid to engage in direct conversation with your design team. We understand that you want to complete the project for the most reasonable price at the fastest pace. If you feel that a proposed scope of work is bloated, ask your engineer about it. A good design firm will provide you feedback explaining why that extra day of drilling may be needed. They will review the risks and challenges with you and explain what the best solutions are. These conversations will provide you the confidence to push forward without worrying about your investment.

-->

Ensuring World War Zero Won’t Cause World War III

Posted on January 14, 2020

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
I’m sure many of you have heard of World War Zero? It’s John Kerry, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest attempt to remind civilization that unless we rally together to solve climate change, civilization as we know it will perish from the face of the earth.

Instead of rehashing the same old doomsday scenarios (which clearly aren’t working), I wish they would better prepare us for a society that switches from high density energy sources to much lower density ones.

It’s taken planet earth millions of years to essentially convert solar energy into high density fuels such as crude oil and coal. We as a species have figured out how to extract all that stored energy essentially instantaneously. So, when we build a coal burning electric plant that produces 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity, the entire complex only has to cover a very small parcel of land. Why? Because coal packs an enormous energy punch per pound, and we merely have to get that fuel into a boiler, release its energy, then send it to our homes and businesses.

If we now attempt to replace an energy dense fuel like coal with wind turbines, we must realize the energy contained in wind is much less than that which took mother nature millions of years to concentrate into a lump of coal. To compensate for this energy density disparity, we need to capture a whole lot more low-density wind. How much more? Well, to produce the same 500 MW of electrical energy using wind turbines, we would have to spread those towers over more than 30,000 acres of land. If you want to produce the same amount of power using solar, get ready to see those panels spread across 2,500 acres.

Bottom line, right now we can and are moving towards a more renewable sustainable energy future. But as Sir Isaac Newton said, “for every action… there’s a reaction” and that reaction will be a vastly different landscape. Because of that major disparity in energy density, wind turbines must occupy every location on earth with windspeeds capable of pushing a blade. Solar panels must be wherever there’s enough sunshine to energize their cells.

“OK”, John Kerry would ask, “then what’s the problem… if we can replace fossil fuels with renewables and save the planet, why don’t we do it?” Well, Senator Kerry, what I’ve found throughout my career is everyone wants renewable energy-until a project comes to their town. Then the pitch forks and torches come out and developers are told to go somewhere else!

So, my advice to you and your fellow doomsayers is stop trying to scare the hell out of everyone by forecasting Armageddon and instead educate us on what a totally sustainable renewable energy world will look like. Because until society embraces the look as much as it embraces the concept, World War Zero will only cause World War III between developers and local citizens.

-->

Common Red Flags That Will Impact Your Land Development Project

Posted on November 27, 2019

By Sean Colella, PE, Project Engineer
You’re holding on to a nice piece of property in New Hampshire and you’ve got an exciting land development opportunity. You think you’ve checked all the boxes and identified any and all potential issues. But before you embark on this venture, here are some of the more common red flags that will impact your land development project, both with your schedule and financially.

Local Zoning Regulations
The local zoning regulations in your city or town determine the permitted uses in each of the zoning districts and building setback distances from all property lines. The best scenario is your proposed development project is an allowed use in the zoning district and you meet the specific requirements (building setbacks, coverage, and structure height). In this case, you can eliminate the need to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Be aware, building setback distances may be modified when industrial or commercial developments directly abuts a residential district.

Site Plan Application Issues
Based on the size, scope, and other criteria (each town is different) of the development project, you will submit an application for site plan review with the local Planning Board. The board reviews the proposed development project to determine if it meets all the respective requirements in the town’s development regulations. This application is unavoidable, but the closer you can match the regulations, the faster you can get through the board and receive site plan approval, which is critical if your project is time-sensitive. It is most beneficial to submit a thorough site plan application to avoid unnecessary revisions and delays in your approval.

Potential Regional Impacts
Depending on the size or geographic location of the development project (e.g. abutting another municipality or state), the local planning board will determine if they believe there is a case for regional impacts. If the board decides the project will have a regional impact, the abutting city or town will have an opportunity to review and provide comments on your project. You can anticipate more delays to your site plan approval, possible additional plan revisions, and more impacts to the project budget in this scenario.

Historical Resources and Natural Heritage Existing on Your Site
It’s in your best interest to submit a request to the Division of Historical Resources (DHR) early in the project discussions. This is a NH state agency that reviews the project scope and geographic location for any historical or archeological sensitive areas. More often than not, a phase 1a archeological survey is requested by the DHR and will be completed at your expense. This survey is a more in-depth review and includes site work by a licensed professional. If you’re lucky, the supplemental phase 1a report will not find any archeological sensitive materials on site, otherwise a phase 1b archeological survey is required, adding critical time and budget to your development project.

Likewise, if you have a land development project that will require an Alteration of Terrain Permit (discussed in the next section), you must request a project review from the Natural Heritage Bureau in NH. This agency reviews the project for any potential impacts to threatened or endangered species, including plants and wildlife. There exists a database which tracks these species geographically, and if something appears in close proximity to your project you can expect additional coordination with NH Fish and Game, as needed. Another state agency will have the opportunity to review and comment on your project, which pushes the proposed scheduled and potentially affects your budget.

NHDES Permit Application
An Alteration of Terrain Permit application is required from the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) when your project disturbance exceeds 100,000 square feet. This permit application and processes alone can add months to a project schedule. The application requires input from the property owner, applicant or developer, agents, and engineering consultants. The biggest component of the application is the stormwater management and drainage analyses in which you need to prove that your project will not have any adverse impacts on receiving waters and directly abutting properties. NHDES has 50 days to respond with comments and the reviewing engineers are very thorough.

Presence of Wetlands
It’s in your best interest to avoid any and all impacts to designated wetlands on your property. If they are unavoidable given your planned development project, a Wetlands Impact Permit is required and submitted to the NHDES. The permit application process will create delays in your anticipated schedule and give the wetlands bureau an opportunity to review and provide more comments. In addition to the NHDES review process, the Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) will, by default, receive a separate application for your proposed wetland impacts. The USACE process includes a review of threatened or endangered species, but they use a different database than does the NHB. This is incredibly challenging if the USACE identifies another species and you’ve already started, or finalized, your site design.

 

Knowing these common red flags that could impact your land development project will help better prepare you to navigate the sometimes challenging world of site development. Some of these challenges will be unavoidable, but with more knowledge, you can effectively push through the permits and minimize impacts to you budget and schedule. Now that you’re ready, go get it!

-->

Top Reasons to Hire a Geotechnical Firm with Local Knowledge

Posted on October 16, 2019

By Kurt Jelinek, PE, Director of Transportation
Geotechnical engineers reside all over the world and clients have the liberty to retain a geotechnical engineering firm at their will. However, there are clear advantages to hiring a geotechnical firm that employs engineers with local knowledge to reduce the risk of experiencing costly surprises during the project execution or project delays. Here are the top reasons why a client should hire a geotechnical firm with local knowledge.

Relationships with Local Drillers Saves Time and Money
Geotechnical firms build relationships with local drilling subcontractors through working together on different projects. This relationship can be of value to a client because drilling subcontractors compete for repeat work which results in receiving competitive drilling contractor bids, accommodating tight project schedules, and getting the job done within the agreed schedule.

Knowing Where to Look for Regional Information that Will Aid in Project Execution
Established geotechnical firms have worked on hundreds of projects over the years within a certain geographical area and they have access to the existing test boring logs they have completed. Additionally, local societies such as the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section (BSCES) or local universities have compiled test boring collections which are often unknown to outsiders. This local knowledge can be used in tailoring a planned test boring program based on subsurface conditions encountered at nearby completed test borings.

Additionally, geotechnical engineers practicing in a geographical area often assemble a collection of local publications such as journal articles, local presentations, or books that are important sources in understanding subsurface conditions and implications of proposed underground constructions.

Good at Guiding You Through Public Obstacles
Planning and coordinating test boring programs on public properties typically requires a street opening permit and possibly a traffic control plan. Every city and state agency often have different requirements and knowing them can alleviate delays in the subsurface exploration program.

Knowledge and Experience with the Subsurface Conditions Your Project Will Encounter
Geotechnical engineers acquire local knowledge regarding certain soil and rock types in a certain area. Some areas in Greater Boston are underlain by Boston Blue Clay and Cambridge Argillite, and large areas along the Connecticut River Valley from Vermont to western Massachusetts to Connecticut are underlain by extensive varved clay deposits. Knowing how these clays and rock behave is critical in providing economical foundation recommendations to a client.

Engineers Who Can Deal with the Regions Unique Conditions
Local geotechnical firms practicing in areas where the landscape has been shaped by glaciers often employ engineers that have developed special skills in identifying glacial deposits such as drumlins, eskers, outwash, kettle, moraine deposits, glaciofluvial deposits, or glacial till. This local knowledge helps in providing sound geotechnical design recommendation as well as alleviates risk of encountering different site conditions during construction.

Knowing Which Contractors are Best Suited to Build Your Project
An important aspect in providing geotechnical recommendations is the constructability of a foundation system. Local geotechnical firms have the advantage of knowing the specialty contractors that practice in their geographical area, which equipment they have available, and possible premium cost implications if specialty equipment needs to be mobilized from another part of the country or from overseas. For example, installing press-in sheet piles and/or pipe piles are common in certain overseas construction and in a few locations throughout the U.S. However, there is likely no contractor in New England that has the equipment to install sheet piles with the press-in method.

Engineers Who Are Engaged in their Regional Professional Associations
Local geotechnical firms employ engineers that live in nearby communities and that are active members of professional organizations, such as state or regional members of American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) or American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Through these professional organization engagements, a local geotechnical firm gains early access to regulatory and process changes of certain public clients which could alleviate project delays.

In addition, firms typically encourage their staff to attend local seminars and symposiums. If a geotechnical firm works in Maine and/or New Hampshire along the coast, it is crucial to understand the behavior of the Presumpscot Formation, which is a glacial deposit of predominantly clay. Special symposiums had been organized specifically to share the engineering behavior and challenges of this unique clay type.

Experience Working with Clients
A local geotechnical firm can develop extensive experience working for a client and knows the intrinsic requirements a client expects. For example, performing geotechnical services on MassDOT, MBTA, or MaineDOT projects have unique requirements and processes that need to be followed, such as design guidance manuals, expected test boring and in-situ testing requirement, field worker safety requirements, boring log and CADD standards, geotechnical report requirements, and quality control processes.

-->

How Long Will It Take to Permit a Renewable Energy Project?

Posted on September 24, 2019

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
If you’ve been watching this season’s political debates, reading news articles, or listening to world leaders, one message is loud and clear. Mother Earth is in trouble! Daily we’re reminded that carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion is causing climate havoc and if humanity doesn’t move to renewable forms of energy, our very existence is in peril.

OK, you get the message and you decide you’re going to do your part to save the planet. You form a company, decide on a renewable energy technology, secure financing, lease or buy the necessary land, and hire professionals to move your dream forward. You’re all set to start digging when you’re told, “hold on, everything needs to be permitted first!”. Permitted? With the world ready to spontaneously combust, how long does permitting take?

Well, it depends on the size of your project. For instance, Eversource and Hydro-Quebec just completed a five year $318M permitting process to transmit renewable hydroelectric power 192 miles over existing powerlines and after all that time (and money) their final project permit was denied! So, let’s assume your project isn’t quite this big and involves typical local and state permits.

To determine the amount of time from concept to construction, it’s important to consider the following. Does your project have the required electrical infrastructure to accept your renewable energy? Is the land suitable for development (i.e. is it too wet, sloped, or cursed with shallow bedrock)? Is the community in favor of your project (from our experience, everyone wants renewable energy until it comes to their town-then it’s “not in my backyard!”)? If your project survives these initial “fatal flaw” tests, then it’s on to land surveys, project layout, and necessary studies to support state permit submissions like alteration of terrain, wetland impacts, and endangered species identification. You must also factor in time to complete local reviews such as zoning board variances, planning board site reviews, and meetings with city councils or selectboards for their approval to adopt special taxation agreements for your project.

Finally, because you’re developing in the Northeast, there’s also one more factor to consider-WINTER! If you miss a seasonal window of opportunity to survey or perform data gathering evaluations, you will probably lose 6 months before you can go back out into the field and retrieve required site data to move on. Assuming you hit an optimal spring start date, you should plan on the entire permitting process to take anywhere from eight to twelve months.

“The process takes too long” you say? I agree and can only surmise that averting a “terra-climatic apocalypse” isn’t on everybody’s top priority list.

-->

Why Getting to Know Your Abutters May Save Your Project

Posted on September 10, 2019

By Chris Nadeau, PE, Director of Commercial Services
Abutters can kill your project – or at least cost you a boatload of time and money.

Here’s a secret – if you want your project to drag out and cost you more money, or even kill it, you should ignore your abutters. I have been to countless planning board public hearings where we hoped none of the abutters would show up or even convinced ourselves – how could anyone oppose such a great project?

Nothing makes a planning board more uncomfortable than having an abutter standing before them demanding that a project be rejected because of traffic, noise, devaluation of property, additional tax burdens, stormwater runoff. I could go on and on.

So, what can you do to prevent this? Make your worst enemy your advocate. Reach out to the abutter who you think is going to be your worst enemy and ask if they would like to meet ahead of time – at their kitchen table. See if they would like to invite some of the neighbors. You make them look like the hero of the neighborhood and you put them in full control while actually controlling the entire process yourself.

A meeting with your abutters adds a personal scale to your project – after all, you are a human being, trying to make a living just like them. You can answer questions, alleviate fears, and quell rumors and mistruths before you get to a public meeting. A possible added bonus – you may even find an advocate for your project. Advocates rarely show up at a public hearing.

Even if your abutters refuse to meet with you, at least you can tell the Planning Board that you tried to facilitate a meeting, but nobody was interested.

Nine times out of ten, once you get to the Public Hearing, the abutter comments will be avoided, or at least minimized and will make it a lot easier for the Board to approve your application. Just remember, nobody likes change, but if you can prepare for change ahead of time, it makes it a lot easier.

I own a small summer cottage in a rural Maine Town abutting an undeveloped commercial lot in a wide-open field. I purchased the property knowing full well that it would eventually get developed by a commercial business. When I received an abutter’s notice last fall for an application to develop the property, I immediately went to the Town Hall to look at the application. I was outraged and emotional about what I saw. I promptly wrote a two page summary of what was wrong with the project and what needed to be done to make it right.

Now I’ve pitched hundreds of projects before Planning Boards and I know very well how it feels to be on the wrong end of an angry abutter. After reading through my letter, I tempered the letter a bit more, to sound a little more sympathetic. The Board eventually approved the project, with many of the conditions that I had outlined in my letter.

Two weeks after the Planning Board meeting, I saw the business owner out cutting his grass and we began chatting. After I found out that he was actually a human being, not a money hungry corporate developer, I felt a little guilty. I sympathized with his position as a new business owner trying to make a living to support his family. We came up with several ideas to help him satisfy the conditions of his approval and get the business open.

Imagine if we had met before the public hearing?

-->

Exciting Times for Renewable Energy

Posted on August 13, 2019

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development, Mayor City of Franklin, NH
These are exciting times in the renewable energy industry! Although I doubted it would ever happen in my lifetime, we have finally achieved the critically important intersection point where the cost of producing renewable electricity is now the same or less than electricity derived from fossil fuels.

As reported by Dominic Dudley in his May 29th, 2019 Forbes article titled “Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels More Expensive Than Ever”, hydroelectricity, photovoltaic solar (PV), biomass, on-shore wind, and geothermal can all produce energy at less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour, putting these sources on par with newly proposed oil, coal, and natural gas plants.

Even more exciting, Mr. Dudley cites the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report titled “Renewable Power Generation Costs” that points out it’s no longer just about a philosophical humanitarian “save the planet” reason to switch to renewables. Now it’s all about making the switch because it makes good economic sense.

So why the delay in making the proliferation of renewable energy a reality? It’s important to mention that the IRENA report distinctly points out the lowest cost renewable energy projects are being built in parts of the world where there’s the “right regulatory structure and institutional frameworks.” In other words, the lowest cost renewables are being built in areas with the least public opposition and most favorable regulatory environments.

Unfortunately, what I see in New England is a citizenry rabidly opposed to fossil fuels, hysterically supportive of renewable energy, and hypocritically cynical of all renewable energy projects proposed in their communities! The “Not In My Back Yard” or “NIMBY” crowd has transformed that famous warning “Don’t Tread On Me” to “Don’t Build It Here”!

In addition, there are entire communities who adopt bold ordinances, make lofty proclamations, sign progressive protocols demanding fossil free futures. Yet, when renewable projects are proposed, they pass restrictive ordinances that essentially ban those projects from ever being built.

Let history show that not only did NIMBYs deter attempts to save the planet, they also nixed opportunities to build these now cheaper sources of energy and lower costs for all.

-->

Nobis Group Employee-Owners Celebrate 30th Anniversary With Poster Contest

Posted on June 26, 2019

Continuing our 30th year celebration, Nobis Group held a Poster contest at our annual employee-owners meeting. Several departments and project teams prepared a poster for a project that best represented the Nobis brand and our core values of teamwork, community, and client service.

“We value being collaborative here at Nobis, and we’re proud of the great work that we accomplish every day, so it’s really rewarding to see in one place such a great variety of our project work and to celebrate together as one team” said Jenny Lambert, Senior Hydrogeologist at Nobis.

“Along with announcing an increase in our share price to our employee-owners, the Poster Contest added a great deal of excitement, fun, and even some healthy competition to our annual meeting. We’re already looking forward to next year’s competition” said Ken Koornneef, President and CEO of Nobis.

Nobis has been employee-owned since 2003 in order to share the success of our business with our employees. Every employee-owner is empowered to engage and actively participate in shaping and continuing the growth and success of our firm.

-->

How to Achieve “The Green New Deal”

Posted on March 21, 2019

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development, Mayor City of Franklin, NH
Once again there are those “spreading panic amongst the citizenry” offering testament to the apocalypse if America doesn’t stop burning fossil fuels. They prophesize that the only solution to save human civilization is to Go Green (vis-à-vis pass The Green New Deal)!

Boiling it down, The Green New Deal imposes government mandates to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2030. In other words, completely replace a fossil fuel-based infrastructure (that took a century and a half to build) with renewables and do it in ten years. Ambitious to say the least… and expensive! Preliminary estimates to get to net zero carbon emissions puts the price tag anywhere between seven and eight trillion dollars (that’s trillion with a “t”). Heck, I guess when you’re already twenty-two trillion in debt, what’s another seven or eight?

Well, I have a better idea on how to achieve the goals of the New Green Deal, how to get it done quickly, and best yet how not to have it cost the taxpayers one red cent. How could we ever achieve this you say? Have our legislators in Washington come together (I know, sounds impossible, but miracles do happen) and pass legislation that fast-tracks the permitting process for all proposed renewable energy projects. As those of us in the industry know, it’s generally not the cost to build a renewable energy project that dooms success. What really sends developers running for the exit doors is the unpredictable length of time, incredible cost associated with, and uncertainty of obtaining local, state, and federal permits.

Take the recently proposed “Northern Pass” renewable hydroelectric energy project. After the New Hampshire based utility-Eversource-spent five years and nearly $280 million dollars to obtain the necessary approvals to upgrade existing transmission lines so that they could import 1,090-megawatts of clean renewable hydroelectric power into the New England electric grid, the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee voted unanimously to deny their final permit.

So, I ask the sponsors of The Green New Deal, if after the spectacular debacle of a private company spending 5 years and $280 million dollars only to get their proposed renewable energy project denied because of a state board stacked with “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) members, who the hell would be stupid enough to ever propose another sizeable renewable energy project without some certainty that it could actually be built? If you do find someone, please steer them my way as I’d like talk to them about a bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn!

Truth be told, everyone wants renewable energy until a project is proposed in their town/city/state. Then, even the most rabid renewable energy pundits immediately print up road signs (that typically read, “Say No to Towers, Windmills, Dams, Solar Panels, etc.), strategically post them on major thoroughfares, and then they incessantly call decision-makers pressuring them to use every tool in their political toolbox to “kill the project”!

Take it from someone who’s out here supporting renewable energy projects. To all those Representatives and Senators who want a carbon neutral America, the quickest way to achieve the goal is to pass legislation that fast-tracks the permitting of renewable energy projects. If you do, you’ll get your Green economy… on-time and without spiraling the entire country ever deeper into bankruptcy.

-->

Nobis Kicks Off 30th Year Celebration During Engineers Week

Posted on March 1, 2019

This year marks Nobis Group’s 30th year as one of the region’s leading small business engineering and science firms. Starting as a one-person business in Concord, New Hampshire, Nobis has grown into an award winning employee-owned firm specializing in providing civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and environmental remediation solutions for public and private clients throughout the Northeast.

As part of its 30th anniversary celebrations, Nobis has many planned events for 2019 that will promote the firm’s culture and brand with its employees, partners, and clients. “The key to our successful growth over the years has been that we’ve never forgotten who we are as a firm, our culture and the way we do business,” said Ken Koornneef, President and CEO.

The year-long festivities started this past week with Nobis’ annual Engineers Week celebrations, where the firm recognizes their employees with various luncheons, gatherings, and engineering activities. The celebrations were capped off by Nobis’ CANgineering competition, where employees competed to build creative structures from canned food items and then donated the canned goods to local food banks and soup kitchens.

“The CANgineering competition is a fun way for us to promote the firm’s teamwork and community service philosophies,” said Allie Goldberg, an environmental engineer at the firm. “Employees get to work together, have fun competing with their colleagues, and then end the competition with a donation to two of our local non-profit organization partners.”

“One of our core values is to help build better communities, not just through our engineering and science expertise, but also by incorporating community service into our day-to-day activities,” said Koornneef. The CANgineering competition is just one of many events that Nobis participates in to solidify its commitment to serving the community. Nobis maintains an active Community Outreach Team and the company offers employees paid time off each year to participate in community service projects. This year’s CANgineering competition included five teams, over 50 employees, and raised over 800 pounds of canned food donations to the Friendly Soup Kitchen in Concord, New Hampshire, and the Merrimack Valley Food Bank in Lowell, Massachusetts.

 

-->

SB 446 Over-ride Vitally Important for Municipalities

Posted on August 15, 2018

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development, Mayor City of Franklin, NH
Governor Chris Sununu recently vetoed SB 446, the so-called “net metering” bill which was specifically designed to encourage communities to pursue municipal projects that would generate up to 5 Megawatts (MW) of renewable electricity. As the Mayor of the City of Franklin, the ability to build these larger net-metered sustainable energy projects in our City will significantly reduce our long-term energy costs as well as enhance our tax and lease revenues. With dwindling State assistance and more cost downshifted to local taxpayers, any savings and energy project revenues are most welcomed in my City where tax dollars are always stretched to the max.

As an example of why I strongly support the increase from 1MW to 5MW, the City of Franklin owns a 65-acre former landfill that generates no income. This land is a perfect site for solar energy production. Unfortunately, with the current net metering cap at 1MW, we are only able to utilize 5 of the 65 acres for solar development. The arbitrary 1MW cap is severely limiting the amount of solar we can place on this very suitable site. Being able to fully utilize this site for a 5MW project would not only result in lower electricity costs for Franklin residents, it would also significantly increase tax revenues and lease payments to the City of Franklin. This ultimately translates into additional revenues for schools, police, fire, critical infrastructure, and much needed taxpayer relief.

SB 446 as written incentivizes renewable energy projects like the ones being built in Franklin. Continued investments in these types of projects significantly reduces our reliance on fossil fuels, diversifies our electrical production portfolio, and incentivizes the repurposing of currently underutilized municipal properties resulting in the generation of much needed lease and tax revenue.

I respect the Governor’s goal of reducing electric rates for all, but I disagree with his conclusion that the way we achieve this goal is to kill SB 446. For the city of Franklin, his veto is a severe blow to our efforts to “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps” and innovatively address our revenue shortfalls. Because of his veto, large net-metered projects-and the significant jobs and economic activity associated with them-are being cancelled. Without an over-ride, dozens of projects proposed in cities and towns across the state will no longer be contributing renewable zero emission energy to the grid.

Franklin strongly supports our continuing societal march towards a fully sustainable future-and our citizens see SB 446 as an important tool to reach our shared goal. Appealing directly to our New Hampshire State Representatives and Senators, if you support efforts by the cities and towns you represent to re-purpose non-productive properties into income producing renewable energy generators, to solve our revenue shortfalls innovatively without demanding more “State aid”, to capitalize upon the environmental benefits from the construction of larger renewable energy systems, then I respectfully ask you to over-ride the Governor’s veto of SB 446.

-->

We Need “More Power!”

Posted on May 7, 2018

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development, Mayor City of Franklin, NH
Ironically, while opponents continue to cheer the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee’s recent decision to deny a permit to build Northern Pass-one of the largest scale renewable energy projects ever proposed for New England-the newest movement to save the planet is quickly gaining steam (or should I say volts). Sixteen countries (including the United States-California to be more specific) have implemented bans on the internal combustion engine-and over the next decade will require everyone to start driving electric vehicles (EVs).

Now do I think EVs are a good idea? Sure I do! About ten years ago, I drove one of the earliest Prius’ and was impressed with its combination of power, economy, and low emissions. With the remarkable technological advances since then, I can only imagine today’s electrics are even more appealing.

But before everyone goes off and buys an EV to “save the planet” we’d better think through the amount of electrical energy needed to go from gas hose to extension cord.

The Energy Information Agency reports the New England states use more than 6 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Knowing one gallon of gasoline converts to 32.6 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy, a quick calculation shows that to replace all those 10,000-gallon tanker trucks rolling to your local gas station with electricity available at your home or charging station would require the New England grid to provide an additional 200,000 gigawatt-hours of energy. A big number, for sure, but what does it mean?

To put it into perspective, let’s compare the need for an additional 200,000 gigawatt-hours of energy to the amount of electrical energy consumed on the New England grid today. The Independent System Operators of New England (ISO-NE)-the group tasked with (among many other things) ensuring our electrical grid remains reliable-reports that our region’s annual average electric usage is about 120,000 gigawatt-hours. Comparing these two numbers demonstrates that if we really want to replace gasoline powered vehicles with EVs we would need to nearly double the amount of electricity produced in New England. As Tim the Tool Man Taylor would say, “we need More Power”!

OK, now that we know how much additional power we need, where are we going to get it? Well, let’s look at the most recent large-scale infrastructure project that most everyone has heard about-the Northern Pass. When completed it would have delivered about 1 gigawatt of electricity to the New England grid. If we assume this amount of power would have flowed onto the grid 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, then the project would have provided 8760 gigawatt-hours of power. If you compare that amount of power to what would be needed to charge our EVs (200,000 gigawatt-hours), it would essentially take 23 Northern Pass projects to meet just our transportation energy needs. With Seabrook producing about 1.2 gigawatts and running at 100% efficiency, it would take 19 new Seabrook size nuclear plants to meet the power needs of an electrically powered transportation sector.

Now seriously, after the out-and-out public assault against Seabrook and the recent Northern Pass fiasco, can anyone remotely imagine the general public ever allowing this type of infrastructure build-out? Not!

It’s wonderful to dream of a day when we no longer need fossil fuels. It feels good to blame the “less educated” for destroying the environment while the “educated” proclaim to have all the solutions. But the bottom line is there are no easy solutions. For every action there’s a reaction-and in this case the reaction to “going electric” is the need for a massive expansion of our electrical generating and transmission infrastructures.

Based on the region’s most recent visceral rejection of replacing transmission lines (Northern Pass) and upgrading existing pipelines (Kinder Morgan), I don’t think anyone needs to stress over whether or not to sell your shares of Exxon-Mobil any time soon!

-->

“Canary in the Coal Mine” Moment

Posted on April 6, 2018

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development, Mayor City of Franklin, NH
I recently attended the New Hampshire Energy Week breakfast and heard Taylor Caswell, Commissioner of the Department of Business and Economic Affairs, tell a familiar yet disturbing story. He shared with us a recent conversation he had with one of our larger manufacturers located in the southern part of the state. Business leaders from the company told the Commissioner they would probably not leave the state… that was the good news. The bad news was, the company had no plans to expand in New Hampshire. The reason? The continued high cost of electricity!

Company leadership told the Commissioner their annual electric bill was $3M. They also shared with him that like many other New Hampshire businesses they were being courted by a southern state to expand their operations “down there” where their comparable electric bill would be $1M. After sharing this grim comparison, Commissioner Caswell paused, looked out over the crowd, and then said, “How do I compete with that much of a disparity in electricity costs? We simply have to do something!”

For Commissioner Caswell, it was clear this was his “canary in the coal mine” moment. For years I’ve been warning anyone who would listen that the business community has been patiently waiting to see if New Hampshire was serious about doing something to reduce the highest electricity costs in the country. Approval of the Northern Pass was the one project that would have given manufacturers some solace that we all realized how devastating these rates have been to their businesses and that we were committed to making decisions to address the problem.

With the recent Site Evaluation Committees’ unanimous vote to squash the project-along with their most recent ruling to do nothing until their written decision has been released (in other words, several more months of delay)-it is a very clear sign we either don’t understand the incredible stress the high cost of electricity is placing on our manufacturers or, worse yet, we simply don’t care!

Regardless which is true, Commissioner Caswell should be prepared to hear many other business leaders tell him the same story. After all, I’ve been hearing the same story for the past five years.

-->

A Second Shot Heard Round the World

Posted on February 27, 2018

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development, Mayor City of Franklin, NH
I’m sure everyone remembers the story behind “a shot heard round the world.” It happened in Concord, MA and was the first official engagement between British and Colonial forces. At the time, no one would have ever imagined this skirmish would forever be remembered as the beginning of the American Revolutionary War. In retrospect, that engagement also led to the creation of the greatest industrial powerhouse the world has ever known-the United States of America. My prediction is the recent New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee decision to kill the Northern Pass project (ironically delivered in Concord, NH), will be the “Second Shot Heard Round the World” and will eventually lead to the demise of whatever industry we have left in New England.

What justification do I have to make such a bold prediction? Over the past five years, I’ve sat around the table with dozens of manufacturing sector leaders from Sturm-Ruger, Sig Sauer, Lindt Chocolate, Holden Engineering, and dozens more. Their message has been consistently loud and clear. Electric rates in New Hampshire have to come down or they, not will, but they MUST move to a state with lower rates.
Their reasoning is sound. After factoring the price of electricity into their final product, they simply can’t compete with their competitors who often times only pay half the cost for their electricity. Also factor in that these New Hampshire companies receive weekly solicitations from southern economic development agencies offering them property tax forgiveness, free land, and sometimes free buildings, if they simply decide to move to their state. When you look at what’s happening in “don’t build it here” New Hampshire and compare it to the sweet deals being offered in in other states, you have the perfect recipe for a disastrous industrial mass exodus.

What is most disturbing about the recent SEC decision was during our roundtable meetings, New Hampshire industrial leaders often stressed that they would watch the Northern Pass project as a sign the region was serious about doing something to lower the cost of electricity. If Northern Pass failed, then they would, at best, stop all consideration of future growth, and, at worse, they would relocate to another part of the country.

Opponents of Northern Pass point to its destruction of our scenic beauty and vacation ambiance. Even though concessions made by Northern Pass throughout project review mitigated these claims, the bottom line is before you can enjoy scenic beauty and rural vistas you need to put food on your table and cloths on your family’s back. With manufacturing employing more than 75,000 people in the Granite State-and double that many people employed by companies that provide support services to the manufacturing sector-what happens when that manufacturer shutters their plant? When a major plant closes in my City, what do I tell those families whose lives are ruined by such a short-sighted SEC decision? Well one thing’s for sure. As we attempt to recover from what would be nothing less than a catastrophe, I’ll make sure to give them the names and contact numbers of the seven-member SEC that made the decision that led to those closures. Maybe those seven members can answer my constituents’ questions better than me. I’ll also refer them to those editorial writers who believed it was more important to preserve vistas than feed families, educate children, and feel the pride of earning wages from putting in an honest day’s work! Once again, I’ll let them explain it to those families in their own words.

-->

Saving the Plant-Attitude vs. Aptitude

Posted on July 10, 2017

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
As the old saying goes, “Success is 80% attitude and 20% aptitude.” If this is truly the case, we have a long way to go before we can save Mother Earth from the ravages of global warming!

OK, by now we’ve all heard the story. Ever since James Watt invented the steam engine in 1769, modern civilization has been belching carbon dioxide (one of many by-products from burning fossil fuels) into the atmosphere. Over the past 250 years, scientists have learned that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “greenhouse” gas-meaning it allows the sun’s infrared radiation in, but prevents those warming rays from escaping back out into space. Because of this phenomenon, scientists also claim that the more CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, the more the planet will warm to a point where it’s simply uninhabitable.

Now whether you believe this doomsday scenario or not, there are the following facts to consider. First, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Second, from analyses of global ice cores, CO2 levels in the atmosphere remained stable from 1000AD all the way up to the invention of the steam engine. Third, from the beginning of the industrial revolution to present, atmospheric CO2 has increased nearly 40%-and with it, global temperatures have increased about 1.8oF.

For the past 30 years, climatologists have predicted a doubling of prehistoric CO2 (those consistent levels measured over the last 1000 years) would increase global temperatures by 3.5oF. Seeing we’ve increased levels by 40% and temperatures have risen half that 3.5oF, it appears from the data their predictions are right on target.

So, if you believe warming of the planet will lead to catastrophic results, what are we to do? It seems the one obvious action would be to replace fossil fuel combustion with non- CO2 emitting renewable forms of energy. After all, it stands to reason that if global temperatures increased as CO2 levels increased so might temperatures stabilize if the rate of CO2 emissions decreased.

To calculate if there would be enough renewable energy sources to completely replace fossil fuels, David JC MacKay published “Sustainable Energy-without all the hot air”. In his book, Mr. MacKay meticulously dissects humanity’s consumption of energy (heating, cooling, transportation, etc.) and then attempts to replace that consumption with renewables (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc.). Spoiler warning!!! In his conclusion, he finds there’s enough renewable energy sources to completely replace fossil fuels.

So, from a scientific (aptitude) perspective, there’s reason to celebrate! We have the knowledge to save the planet. But remember, aptitude is only 20% of our success. The other 80% is attitude.

Do you think we have the right attitude to make the switch to renewables? Certainly from watching Hollywood elites and main stream media you would think we do. But when you look locally and heed the advice of Tip O’Neil, the great politician and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who said “All politics is local!”-we are doomed!

Although Mr. MacKay wrote his book in 2008 with a focus on energy usage and renewable resources in Britain, he saw then what we in the United States see today-a societal attitude against the switch to renewables. As Mr. MacKay summarized, “Yes, technically Britain has huge renewable resources. But realistically, I don’t think Britain can live on renewables. I am partly driven to this conclusion by the chorus of opposition that greets any major renewable energy proposal. If the British are good at one thing, it’s saying no!”.

Sound familiar to what’s going on right now in our very backyards? “No” to Northern Pass (hydro), “no” to Cape Wind (wind turbine), “no” to Great Bay power (underwater turbines), “no” to Kinder-Morgan and Spectra natural gas pipelines (granted still a fossil fuel but the intent is to replace the highest carbon emitters-coal and heavy oil-with the planet’s lowest emitting fossil fuel). It appears the American colonies inherited one thing from mother Britain-her propensity to say, “No!”.

In short, we have the aptitude to make significant change to our environment. But until we adopt the right attitude the only change we’re sure to see is an ever-warming planet.

-->

Zeolite – The Little Mineral That Could II

Posted on April 7, 2017

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
Zeolite, Mother Nature’s aluminosilicate mineral with amazing remedial characteristics, has been studied and utilized for millennia. But as civilization changes, so does its applications.

In my first article in this series, I presented preliminary results of zeolite’s effectiveness in capturing toxic metals leached from coal ash. Why specifically focus on coal ash? Because millions of tons of the stuff currently lie across the globe in conditions highly susceptible to releasing toxic metals into the surrounding environment. Those responsible for managing this waste would welcome a simple inexpensive way to minimize its metal-leaching potential.

Up to now, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged the re-use of coal ash by adding it to Portland cement and aggregate. Once cured, the resulting concrete has shown promise in effectively locking in those toxic metals.

The drawbacks are you either need lots of customers for all that concrete or a whole lot of space to store all those resulting concrete blocks. Literature studies also report that for maximum metal sequestration you need four parts of Portland cement for every one part of coal ash. With the high cost of Portland cement, this solution can be prohibitively expensive.

Enter Niles International Corporation’s (NIC) patented zeolite. Our research partner, XDD Remedial Solutions (XDD), has found that mixing just one part zeolite with one part coal ash achieved excellent metal sequestration. XDD also found that mixing NIC zeolite with coal ash and then adding this mixture to one part Portland cement concrete achieved exceptional results. As the saying goes, a picture (or in this case a chart) is worth a thousand words, so please review XDD’s summary of findings in the chart located in my LinkedIn article. http://goo.gl/aA9ljs

Based on these findings, Nobis Engineering, along with NIC, Remedial Technology Distributors (RTD) and XDD, has brought to the coal and power industries several options for substantially reducing metal leachate from coal ash. The simplest, least expensive and effective option would be to blend one part ash with one part NIC zeolite. The somewhat costlier but most effective approach would be to take the blended zeolite/coal ash and mix it with one part Portland cement to form a very stable concrete. With all that coal ash lying around, there’s a huge inexpensive feedstock just waiting to be utilized. Now if we could only find a project that will need a whole lot of concrete? Hmmm… wait, didn’t I hear about a big wall going up somewhere?!

-->

Zeolite – The Little Mineral That Could

Posted on March 20, 2017

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
A friend once said, “humans are the earth’s virus-where ever we go we infect and destroy!” A pretty harsh indictment of the most successful and prolific life form on the planet. But, truth be told, we do profoundly impact our environment… and often that impact is negative.

One major example is our ever-growing need for energy. A major source of that energy here and throughout the world is coal. One of the by-products of coal combustion is residual ash which is naturally high in metals. When this ash contacts water, the metals are released and often end up in streams, ponds, and rivers-where they are toxic to wild and human life.

With millions of tons of coal ash currently stored in a manner that’s susceptible to leaching toxic metals to surface and groundwater, there needs to be an effective affordable solution to capture those contaminants before they escape into our environment.

Just as the earth has provided many of the ingredients for curing human ailments, it’s not surprising that it has also provided a natural solution to the coal ash dilemma. Zeolite is a naturally occurring mineral with unique abilities to absorb a wide range of impurities from liquids and solids. Nobis Engineering has teamed with Moleculoc, Remedial Technology Distributors (RTD), and XDD Remediation Solutions (XDD) to study the ability of Moleculoc’s patented enhanced zeolite to capture the toxic metals before they are released to the environment.

Preliminary bench tests performed on twelve different coal ash metals have been impressive. “The little mineral that could” has reduced copper leachate by 99.6%, cadmium by 92%, zinc by 94%, and beryllium by 99.1%. When the ash was mixed with zeolite and concrete, results were even better.

So it looks like once again Mother Earth has provided a natural remedy to help fight off the infection caused by humans-her loving yet problematic “virus”. Nobis Engineering along with Moleculoc, RTD, and XDD will continue to provide the coal and power industries with significant data to demonstrate that zeolite is an effective affordable solution for sequestering metals found in residual coal ash. Please stay tuned to my LinkedIn page as I publish additional supportive laboratory results.

-->

Editorial: The Future for Solar is Bright

Posted on February 1, 2017

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
Benjamin Franklin once said, “There are only two things certain in life: death and taxes.” Now I’m not here to challenge old Ben, but I’ve lived long enough to feel pretty confident about adding one more to his list. That is, “There are only three things certain in life: death, taxes, and the sun will rise tomorrow.” And with that third certainty comes the opportunity to capture a free source of energy to power our homes, businesses, and planet.

Although having the ability to consistently and with certainty capture an unlimited free power source sounds like a “no lose” business proposition, the solar industry has always faced stiff head-winds. Their most formidable challenge has always been to lower the cost to convert that free energy into a useable form that is competitive with fossil fueled sources (brown power). Equally challenging is navigating the continuously shifting support for politically imposed subsidies to “level the playing field” between the comparatively higher cost of green solar versus cheaper brown power.

So, knowing cost is the pivotal factor, can the solar industry ever achieve price equity with brown power? I believe the answer is a resounding yes!

As is typically the case, technology is revolutionizing the solar industry (I’m sure Ben Franklin would appreciate my choice of words here!). Solar voltaic panels are becoming more efficient at lower production costs. A short five years ago, it cost nearly $4/watt to produce solar power. Two years ago, that cost was halved to $2/watt, and today it has halved again to just about $1/watt.

In terms of cost per kilowatt hour, 2 years ago when Nobis started working with solar developers, the price needed to support a solar project was in the 12-15 cents per kilowatt-hour range compared to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for brown power. Today, solar developers are building projects with a sale price of 8-10 cents per kilowatt-hour. As you can see (and what should be music to everyone’s ears) is solar power is rapidly closing the price gap with its arch rival brown power.

The rapidly falling price of solar really “kills two birds with one stone.” As the price gap narrows, consumer’s generally choose the greener source. And with that all important consumer choice, the need for unpredictable subsidies evaporates.

Because of advanced technologies, lower equipment costs, and a diminishing reliance on subsidies, the future of solar looks bright (pun intended)! With more than two years of solar project design and having permitted more solar in New Hampshire than any other firm to date, Nobis Engineering is strategically positioned to grow right alongside this burgeoning industry.

-->

Delaying Decision on Northern Pass Affects You

Posted on May 31, 2016

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
The hot media topic for the week of May 22nd was the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee’s (SEC) vote to delay their decision on the Northern Pass project to September of 2017. As the end of that week rolled into Memorial Day weekend, I wonder how many families gathered around the barbeque and talk about how this action will affect their lives? My guess is few to none!

That’s too bad because the SEC’s vote to delay is serious stuff and it has the potential to adversely impact each and every one of us. With the Northern Pass project projected to deliver an estimated $80 million dollars in direct electricity cost savings, it will delay relief on all our high electric bills. With fossil fueled power plants quickly replacing retiring zero carbon emission nuclear plants, the SEC delay is jeopardizing our environment by allowing high carbon emitting sources to come on-line before clean low emission hydropower is approved. But most importantly, the SEC delay is risking every New Hampshire job directly and indirectly dependent upon our fragile manufacturing sector.

To my fellow citizens throughout New Hampshire-if your job is in any way connected with the manufacturing industry please understand that your livelihood, employment opportunities for your children and grandchildren, and your desire for a clean carbon-free future depends on approval of projects like Northern Pass. Realize that your employers are being crippled by the highest electricity costs in the nation. As their overall cost to produce products continues to skyrocket, manufacturers are finding it more and more difficult to compete with their domestic and global competitors. Inevitably, their only logical choice for survival will be relocation.

Up to now, there has been a glimmer of hope that large projects delivering cheaper energy were in our foreseeable future. But the SEC’s decision to delay Northern Pass sends a very bad signal to manufacturers-one which will be interpreted as an indifference to their plight and a clear sign that “it’s time to go!”
So, if you, your family members, your friends have jobs dependent on manufacturing, it’s time to be concerned. If you care about your environment and would like to see our society strive to achieve an affordable carbon free economy, then it’s time to be concerned. When you started reading this article, you may have had no interest in the SECs recent decision to delay the Northern Pass. But hopefully you now realize it’s time to sit up and take notice it’s time to pay attention because delaying a decision on Northern Pass really does affect you!

-->

Nobis is the Renewable Energy Leader in New Hampshire

Posted on January 19, 2016

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
Nobis has partnered with NH Solar Garden in the development of 15 solar projects throughout central and southern New Hampshire. Nobis is at the forefront of the escalating solar industry in the State of New Hampshire and is considered the leading consulting firm in the renewable energy field providing comprehensive public relations, regulatory negotiations, land planning, engineering design, and permitting services. Nobis has provided designs for a wide range of solar installations from small scale (less than 1 Megawatt) to large scale (greater than 1 Megawatt) systems, both as ground-based and rooftop mount type systems. Solar arrays such as these are being developed on municipal and privately-owned properties that are currently being transformed from underutilized assets to sustainable, renewable energy resources.

Nobis successfully designed and permitted the largest multi-site solar installation in the State of New Hampshire for the City of Franklin. At roughly 10 megawatts, the system is designed to supplement current electricity demand and to transfer power directly to the energy grid. The project allows the City of Franklin to transform underutilized land into sources of clean energy while reducing its overall electricity costs.

Solar projects Nobis is currently working on in New Hampshire include:

• LL&S, Inc. Landfill, Salem (1.3 MW)
• ERRCO Facility, Epping (778 KW)
• Cunningham Lane, Chester (1 MW)
• Evergreen, Lisbon (750 KW)
• Concord Road, Lee (100 KW)

-->

Nobis Engineering-The Renewable Energy Leader

Posted on January 18, 2016

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
Nobis Engineering, Inc. (Nobis) is proud to be at the forefront of the escalating solar industry in the State of New Hampshire. Currently partnering with NH Solar Garden, Nobis has permitted or is currently in the process of permitting 15 solar projects located throughout central and southern New Hampshire. Nobis is providing designs for a variety of small (less than 1 Megawatt) and large scale (greater than 1 Megawatt) projects including ground-based, rooftop, and car-port type systems. Solar arrays such as these are being developed on municipal and privately-owned properties that are currently being transformed from underutilized assets to sustainable, renewable energy resources. With this number and diversity of solar projects, Nobis has been recognized as New Hampshire’s leading consulting firm in the solar renewable energy field providing comprehensive public relations, regulatory negotiations, land planning, engineering design, and permitting services.

SOLAR PROJECT OF HISTORIC PROPORTION:
Nobis Engineering successfully designed and permitted the largest multi-site solar installation in New Hampshire history. Located in the City of Franklin, this nearly 10 Megawatt system is designed to supplement the city’s electricity demand and transfer excess power directly to the energy grid. The project allows the City of Franklin to transform underutilized land into sources of clean energy while reducing their overall electricity costs.

-->

Solar Revolution for New England “Mill Towns”

Posted on June 24, 2015

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
For those of us who live in New England, driving by blighted mill buildings and vacant downtowns is an all too common experience. Of course, it wasn’t always that way. During the Industrial Revolution, New England’s abundant rivers and streams powered those once mighty mills which during their heyday led the country and the world in industrial output.

Then, beginning in the 1970’s and continuing into the early 21st century, cheap labor and fewer regulations drove New England manufacturers overseas-leaving those quintessential rural mill towns with a lot of open lots, empty buildings, and broken hearts. Well, the sun may once again be rising (literally) for “mill towns”.
Solar energy has long been touted as the planets saving grace. After all, as long as the sun keeps shining, solar cells keep pumping out energy. But to capitalize on this virtually inexhaustible power source, there are two critical factors that must be present: large plots of land to allow for sufficient solar panel deployment and three phase power lines to allow the generated solar energy to flow into the electric grid.

Although to many those dilapidated mill buildings may appear an embarrassing legacy, it was their mighty power requirements that drove the construction of existing electrical infrastructure crucial for today’s solar arrays. And by design many New England communities have maintained their rural nature-thus satisfying the need for large tracts of land. Combine the two, and you have an attractive environment for very large very productive solar power installations vis-a-vis a Solar Revolution.

To give you an example of how the Solar Revolution has already begun, let me share with you the story of my home City of Franklin, NH. Franklin is located in central NH and is very much a mill City. Like others, this once industrial powerhouse was staggered by the closing of its iconic mills and has since struggled to seize upon the next great opportunity. Although eyesores, those mighty mills left a vast electrical infrastructure. That, combined with the city’s rural setting has attracted the attention of a major solar developer-NH Solar Garden.

Teaming with Nobis Engineering, a major land development and environmental permitting firm, NH Solar Garden approached Franklin municipal officials to discuss developing solar arrays on large tracts of unproductive city-owned properties all located adjacent to vital electrical infrastructure. As a result of those initial talks, NH Solar Garden is moving forward with nearly 9 megawatts of proposed solar installations. Upon completion this will be the largest single solar installation in the history of the State thus earning Franklin the title “New Hampshire’s Solar Capital”.

Throughout its thirty year life expectancy, the solar arrays will generate thousands of megawatt hours of carbon free energy, hundreds of thousands of dollars in lease payments to the City, and residual property tax payments for land that was virtually worthless in its present state. The City of Franklin will also have access to stable predictable power rates with the potential to save tens of thousands of dollars in electricity costs over the life of the arrays. And most importantly, the City will be able to reverse a pervasive perception from one of a struggling 19th century old mill city to one of an advanced modern 21st century environmentally conscious low carbon green energy mecca. I can hear our Mayor now, “Apple, Microsoft, Google, you should relocate some of your operations to a truly sustainable city, Franklin-the Solar Capital of NH!” Now that’s going to raise some eyebrows!

Just as water power had propelled Franklin to “powerhouse” status in the 19th and 20th centuries, it may be among the first of many New England “mill towns” to regain its illustrious status by capitalizing upon the Solar Power Revolution.

-->

Lowering New England’s Electricity Costs

Posted on February 17, 2015

By Tony Giunta, PG, Director of Project Development
I’m sure by now you’ve had the sobering experience of opening your electric bill and thinking “there must be some mistake!” Nope, no mistake. Prices have gone up… way up. In my case, I saw a 35% increase. It appears I was one of the lucky ones as a close friend said his monthly bill increased by nearly double that amount. Ouch!

Knowing I’m in the energy field, many people ask me “What’s driving these staggering increases?” and “Will prices ever come down again?” To answer these questions, let’s first take a closer look at how New England has achieved the dubious distinction of having the highest electric rates in the country and then address what it will take to lower those rates.

First, we all need to realize that it takes energy to make electricity. The major forms of energy are derived from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), nuclear fuel, and renewable fuels such as water, wind, biomass, and the sun. Because consumers demand reliability (available power 24-7) as well as low costs, electrical producers satisfy those consumer demands by choosing fuels that are least expensive and produce the most reliable sources of electricity.

In the post-World War II era, we all believed there were limitless supplies of cheap fossil fuels. We were also in the dawn of the “atomic age” and had successfully harnessed energy from splitting the atom. And the intricate connection between industrialization and environmental degradation had yet to be understood. As a result, fossil (mainly coal and oil) along with nuclear were the dominant sources of energy for producing cheap reliable electricity.

Then came the 70’s-the 1973 oil embargo, the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant incident, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and their promulgation of tighter restrictions on air, water, and soil pollution. These events, combined with a modern era focus on fossil fuel emissions and their contribution to global warming, have completely changed the “fuel of choice” dynamics for 21st century electrical producers.
Taking all this into consideration, if you were going to build a power plant in New England today you would want to power it with a fuel source that is abundant, allows you to run reliably at low cost and with relatively low emissions. As you look for this “Goldilocks” fuel, the first piece of good news is power plants located in New England are less than a day’s drive from the Marcellus shale formation-one of the largest natural gas reserves in the entire world. Even better news is with advancements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal directional drilling those reserves are now abundantly available and cheap. And possibly the best news of all is natural gas is one of the cleanest burning lowest emission fossil fuels available.

Based on this information, the logical fuel choice for your new power plant would be natural gas. And as you would expect over the past ten years statistics have shown that New England power plants have chosen natural gas as their fuel of choice.

So now the question becomes, “if the majority of our electricity is coming from low emission cheap plentiful domestic sources, why are my electric bills going through the roof?”

Well, the short answer is electrical producers weren’t the only ones who chose their fuel based on all those good characteristics associated with natural gas. Manufacturers, businesses, industries, and homeowners want that same cheap reliable low emission fuel for their use, too! With so many consumers choosing natural gas, there’s now a shortage of that fuel during times of peak demand.

Although demand for natural gas has grown dramatically, the pipeline capacity to deliver that gas has not kept pace. Pipeline demand has exceeded pipeline supply. To complicate matters even further, when it comes to a hierarchy of usage, power plants are last on the totem pole to receive their due. Only after business, industry, and residential demand is met will any remaining gas supply be sold to power plants.

So on the coldest days of winter-those days when both electricity usage and heating requirements are at their highest-electricity producers are restricted from accessing natural gas and must find other sources of fuel to meet demand.

Here in lies the crux of the “high cost” dilemma. When natural gas producing plants turn off because they lack gas supply, other plants that typically use higher cost fuels and whose cost of electrical production are often much higher turn on. As those higher cost electrons flow onto the grid, someone has to pay for them… and that someone is you and me.

In the Northeast, this scenario has been occurring more and more frequently and for longer durations. In fact, it has become so predictable that the electrical markets have reacted by factoring those higher costs of production into their rates. As a result, we, the consumers, are not only paying more money for that electricity, we are also paying higher environmental costs as those plants that must supplement the market in the absence of natural gas typically use much “dirtier” fuels such as coal, heavy oils, and jet fuel.

So, how do we lower rates? Simply stated, we must increase natural gas pipeline capacity into New England. Again, the largest lowest cost natural gas fields in the world are a couple of hundred miles away. Lowering the cost of electricity is not a question of if we can find more natural gas supply, it’s merely a function of getting enough gas into New England such that we no longer have to rely upon producers who use high priced high emission fuels to meet peak demands.

Bottom line, having ample quantities of domestic natural gas available to meet New England’s peak demands will not only lower electric rates, it will also improve air quality throughout the region, a true win-win for all concerned.

-->

Categories

Archives