Contributed by Zane Hood, P.E., Principal, PPM Consultants
There’s a moment on certain environmental projects where everything slows down. The sampling is complete. The lab results are in. You open the report expecting a clear direction, either a problem to solve or a clean bill of health. Instead, you get something in between. Contaminants are present, but not above any regulatory thresholds. Nothing jumps out as actionable. Nothing demands remediation.
And that’s when the real question begins: What do you do when a site is technically compliant—but not entirely pristine? For example, ADEM guidance documents point to EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) as the initial screening tool to evaluate if impact is present in soil or groundwater. There are “risk-based” calculated concentrations that are based on very conservative exposure factors that are not “real world” normals.
This is one of the most common, and least discussed, decision points in environmental consulting. It’s also where experience matters most. Because while regulations or guidance documents are designed to tell you when you should act, they rarely tell you what the smartest move is when you don’t have to. Additionally, many regulators assume that if concentrations are detected in soil or groundwater above the RSLs, then one must report the results to the agency. However, in many states, this is not as clear cut as they imply and if you look at the actual regulations, not guidance documents, the reporting requirements never mention anything about RSLs. One must also understand what division or department of the state regulatory agency would be responsible for the site if reporting is performed, as each department has their own reporting requirements.
A Shift in the Regulatory Conversation
In Alabama, that question has taken on new relevance with the passage of Senate Bill 71 (SB71). At a high level, the legislation reinforces a principle that many in the industry have long debated: state agencies should not impose requirements more stringent than federal standards without clear justification.
You can read the bill here: https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2026RS/SB71-enr.pdf
While SB71 doesn’t eliminate environmental guidance or voluntary programs, it does sharpen the line between what is required and what is recommended.
That distinction matters more than ever. If this sounds fuzzy it’s because it is and the regulatory community is searching for answers and impacts to current rules and regulations as well.
To complicate matters, in practice, many environmental decisions, especially in redevelopment—have historically been influenced as much by guidance as by regulation.
Documents like the Alabama Environmental Investigation and Remediation Guidance (AEIRG) are incredibly valuable. They provide structure, consistency, and a shared technical framework for evaluating environmental conditions. But AEIRG is guidance. It is not necessarily enforceable regulation but a policy framework.
That may sound like a subtle distinction, but it has real consequences. When guidance is treated as if it were binding, projects can expand unnecessarily—more sampling, more analysis, more regulatory involvement—without a corresponding regulatory requirement.
SB71 doesn’t eliminate that dynamic entirely, but it does reinforce something important:
decisions should be grounded first in enforceable standards, not just conservative interpretation of guidance.
So, what happens when your data shows impacts—but not exceedances? This is where many projects reach a fork in the road. Not because the regulations demand it, but because uncertainty invites overreaction.
One path is to enter a formal program, such as Alabama’s Voluntary Cleanup Program to pursue a closure letter and liability protections. That approach has clear value in the right context—particularly when transactions, financing, or public visibility are involved.
The other path is less formal, but no less deliberate. It involves stepping back and recognizing that, in the absence of regulatory drivers, the goal is not to force the site into a cleanup framework—it’s to manage it intelligently.
Moving Forward Without a Regulatory Driver
Sometimes this approach gets casually labeled as “doing nothing.” In reality, it is anything but that. A more accurate description is a well-documented, best-practice-driven process that is not dictated by a regulatory cleanup trigger.
It means evaluating the data carefully, understanding exposure pathways, and making informed decisions about how to handle site conditions during redevelopment activities like demolition or excavation. It means managing materials appropriately, coordinating disposal where necessary, and maintaining a clear technical record of why those decisions were made.
There is nothing passive about it.
It is a deliberate, defensible strategy that aligns the level of response with the level of actual risk—rather than defaulting to a programmatic solution simply because one exists.
The Real Decision: Environmental Risk vs. Business Risk
At its core, this isn’t just an environmental decision. It’s a business decision. Formal programs like the VCP provide certainty. They offer closure letters, liability protections, and a clear endpoint that can be valuable in transactions or public-facing projects. Conversely, they also introduce structure, oversight, permanent deed restrictions, and often a broader scope of work than the site conditions alone might require and the ADEM fees alone can range from $28K to $90K.
On the other hand, a best-practice-driven approach outside of a formal program offers efficiency and flexibility—but places more emphasis on internal documentation and long-term defensibility.
Neither approach is universally right.
The right answer depends on the context.
- Is the property being sold or financed?
- Is there potential for third-party claims?
- Is the project high-profile or publicly sensitive?
- Or is it a controlled redevelopment with limited long-term exposure?
These are the questions that should drive the decision—not simply the presence of low-level detections.
Avoiding the Trap of Over-Compliance
One of the more interesting patterns we see across projects is that the biggest risk is rarely under-compliance. It’s over-compliance.
There’s a natural tendency to assume that doing more will reduce risk. But in practice, it can introduce new complexities—expanded scope, increased regulatory scrutiny, and higher costs without a meaningful improvement in outcomes.
The goal isn’t to do everything possible. It’s to do what is appropriate—and defensible.
Final Thoughts: Perspective Matters
At PPM, we spend a lot of time helping clients navigate the complexities of these gray areas—not just by interpreting regulations, but by putting them into context. Because environmental work isn’t just about thresholds and tables. It’s about understanding how regulations, guidance, site conditions, and business objectives all intersect.
And increasingly, with changes like Senate Bill SB71, it’s about recognizing that not every site needs to be pushed into a formal regulatory process to be managed correctly.
“Clean enough” isn’t just a number. It’s a decision. And in today’s regulatory environment, making the right one requires more than data. It requires a clear understanding of what is required, what is optional, and what adds value.
If you have a redevelopment plan or project with environmental complexities to be navigated, feel free to reach out to me any time for a discussion at zane.hood@ppmco.com.
If you’d like to see more articles like this on a weekly basis, consider subscribing to the PPM Environmental Journal. Click HERE to subscribe.