Indiana Finds Elevated Levels of PFAS in Drinking Water at Nine Small Utilities


The State of Indiana recently reported finding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or “forever chemicals” above the 2022 federal advisory levels at nine community public water systems (CWSs) in Indiana. The sampling was performed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to comply with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposal in 2022 for monitoring PFAS in drinking water nationwide.  

A CWS regularly provides drinking water to at least 25 residents on a year-round basis or has at least 15 service connections to residents.  These new results from the IDEM are from the second round (Phase 2) of testing at 59 smaller CWSs (serving less than 10,000 residents) across the state from November 2021 to December 2022.  The nine facilities with elevated PFAS include: Delphi Water Works, Crescent Hills Mobile Home Park, Leavenworth Water Company, Westport Water Company, Haubstadt Water Department, And-Tro Water Authority – District 1, Troy Township Water Association, Indiana American Water – Farmersburg, and Sullivan-Vigo Rural Water Corp. 

The IDEM is planning to complete additional testing at larger CWSs (facilities that service more than 10,000 residents) before the end of May 2023. The results from both rounds of IDEM testing and the IDEM’s PFAS sampling schedule are available on the IDEM PFAS website.

As more testing is completed and publicly available data is released in Indiana, and across the nation, we will continue to assess the findings and provide additional interpretations and guidance to our clients on the potential risks associated with PFAS contamination.  

If you have PFAS questions, please contact us.

‘Air’ial Assault: How Contaminated Air From Past or Current Operations Can Impact Your Property & Surrounding Community

EnviroForensics’  Vapor Intrusion and Mitigation lead shares his expertise on how contamination in the air from current and/or past operations may be impacting your property and community health. 


Access to fresh air and water are required to sustain a healthy life and should not be taken for granted. Do you know if current and/or historical operations at your property are adversely impacting the breathing air within your building or nearby structures? If you have read EnviroForensics’ past articles, we have explained the basics of environmental contamination, how it impacts properties, and the process by which an environmental consultant like us can assist with investigating, mitigating, or remediating a contaminated property. In this article, I am focusing on explaining how contamination in the air from current and/or past operations may be impacting your property and nearby properties.


Let’s briefly review how environmental contamination can occur. Environmental contamination begins with a sudden and/or incidental release(s) of hazardous materials into the environment. These are referred to as “spills” and can occur in areas where hazardous materials are used. Perhaps it was a leaky connection to a drycleaning machine that dripped solvent for years, or a sudden accident where a container of solvent (virgin or waste) tipped over and released out the back door soaking into the asphalt parking lot or ground surface. These areas where contaminants are released are termed “source areas”. The contaminants in source areas can migrate downward in the subsurface due to gravity. Because the contaminant molecules from a spill can bind to soil particles, a source area can continue to release contaminants into the subsurface over time. Contaminants that migrate vertically can reach the groundwater and spread as they dissolve into the groundwater and migrate in the direction of groundwater flow. This is a common way for contamination to travel away from a source area and impact adjacent properties. So now that you know how a contaminant can be released and enter the subsurface environment; how exactly can this impact air quality?


Drycleaning solvents like tetrachloroethene (PCE), also known as perchloroethylene or commonly referred to in the industry as PERC, are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). As these chemical compounds are volatile, they readily evaporate from liquid to vapor phase. Let’s take nail polish remover for example: as soon as you open the container you will smell the acetate in the air immediately. This is because acetate is volatile and readily evaporates from its liquid form to its vapor form when exposed to ambient air. The potent odor from the nail polish container, or PERC container within your building, is an indicator of the vapor phase quickly filling a room when a container is opened. Now if we consider a contaminant source area where PCE was spilled into the subsurface, we can understand that the material will readily evaporate, or ‘off-gas’, and the vapor phase will contaminate the surrounding subsurface air residing within spaces between soil particles. Given the characteristics of vapors, the contaminated air will migrate laterally and upward towards the ground surface. Contaminant vapors in the subsurface air will continue to spread outward as contaminants move from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.

As contaminants off-gas from impacted soil and groundwater, they can potentially produce a soil gas contaminant plume (or vapor plume) which is basically a subsurface ‘cloud’ of contaminated air. These soil gas plumes can accumulate beneath structures and enter the structure’s breathing air, this is commonly referred to as “vapor intrusion”. This can occur in a variety of structural settings, whether a structure is constructed over a crawlspace with a gap between the soil and floor of the building or if it is a concrete slab placed directly on the soil. Contaminated air from the subsurface can seep into the structure from the exposed soil of a crawl space or through cracks, floor drains, sumps, or other penetrations in a concrete slab. Depending on the contaminant concentrations of the vapor plume, breathing the indoor air impacted with contaminant vapors could adversely affect the health of occupants within the structure. Vapor plumes can exist in the subsurface and impact structures long after the spill and spread of contamination initially occurs. As contamination released to groundwater can allow contaminant to travel away from the source area, vapor intrusion can occur at structures well away from the initial source area of contamination as well. 


These air impacts can go unnoticed as they are not typically concentrated enough to be observed by your sense of smell and require specialized sampling and analytical testing to evaluate the concentrations in indoor air. To ensure that property owners and residents near known source areas and vapor plumes are not being exposed to potential health risks from these vapors, it may be necessary to test the air quality.  Soil gas monitoring wells can be installed nearby known environmental contamination to evaluate the subsurface conditions in the area. If samples collected from soil gas monitoring wells indicate the presence of contamination at certain levels, then nearby structures may be further evaluated. Indoor air samples can be collected from within the occupied living spaces of structures to evaluate indoor air quality while samples can also be collected outdoor to evaluate the air conditions outside for comparison. In addition, small sampling points can be installed through the concrete slab of a structure, known as sub-slab vapor sampling points, and used to collect samples from beneath a structure. Evaluating the air conditions beneath the concrete slab aid in determining what can potentially enter the structure through the concrete slab or other penetrations. 

In addition to environmental contamination in the subsurface leading to vapor intrusion and contaminated breathing air withing structures, business operations can impact indoor air. We occasionally have our clients ask us if subsurface impacts can affect breathing air of structures, how are drycleaners able to use these solvents within their own facilities? And can actively using them present the same health issues to occupants in adjacent or nearby properties? 

Many industrial facilities like drycleaners legally use known hazardous substances to carry-out their manufacturing or other business operations. As hazardous substances can provide risk(s) to workers using certain products, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires proper communication of the substances used by the employer. This communication includes acceptable indoor air exposure levels of the chemical used in a business environment. 

Concentrations of the volatilized chemicals produced during business operations can permeate the indoor air and other materials/contents within the structure. The contaminated air within a building (generated from operations or vapor intrusion) will spread outward exhausting to the outdoors through doors, windows, exhaust fans, etc. at which point they migrate along with the general wind direction. Depending on the property layout and surrounding properties, this contaminated air could potentially infiltrate nearby structures’ breathing air, introduced through open doors and/or windows, or can even be entrained into ventilation systems of a nearby structure. In some scenarios where a facility may share a common interior wall with an adjacent business (like in a strip-mall for example), the air concentrations from materials being used in one business can permeate through the walls and/or above the shared ceiling or attic space into the adjacent business. Although adjacent spaces may have their own separate ventilation system and not have direct access to the area where the contaminated air is generated, air mixing can still occur and impact adjacent spaces.

As we previously discussed, OSHA permits a facility using hazardous materials to have certain concentrations of contaminants in the workers breathable air, but what about the breathing air of the adjacent business unit or the potential residential structure across the alley? The permissible levels allowed by OSHA are prescribed for workers, not for the occupants of nearby structures. When environmental investigations are performed, indoor air concentrations are compared to levels prescribed by the local and/or state government, or in some cases the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These levels are much lower, or more stringent, than OSHA levels as the occupants of these structures are not electing to work at a business or live in a residence that knowingly stores or uses hazardous chemicals. As one might imagine, this can be problematic for operators of facilities that use hazardous materials. Although they can maintain compliance within the work environment, the same air concentrations may not be in compliance if determined to be present in adjacent or nearby properties.


Now that I’ve explained scenarios by which past and/or current hazardous material storage, use, and releases can impact indoor air, you’ll be relieved to know that appropriate measures can be taken to mitigate the impacted air and ensure a healthy breathing environment. EnviroForensics has installed numerous systems, designed to mitigate the potential for unwanted contaminated air from entering the breathing air of a structure. For vapor intrusion scenarios, where unwanted vapors are entering the structure from the subsurface beneath a structure’s foundation, a vapor mitigation system can be installed. A vapor mitigation system is designed to interrupt the pathway by which vapors enter the breathing air. As structural foundations can vary, vapor mitigation systems can be comprised of multiple components, for example: active venting, passive venting, sub-slab depressurization extraction points, vapor barrier in crawlspaces, pre- and post-construction installations, vapor matting, etc. For scenarios where unwanted air generated from active operations is the issue, ventilation systems can be rerouted and/or modified to mitigate the issue. Once a system is in place, long-term operations, maintenance, and monitoring is often completed to continue to confirm the system(s) are operating as designed.  

Rest assured, EnviroForensics is here to assist you for if you have concerns that one of these scenarios may exist at your property. Our team of scientists have a wealth of experience at tackling complex environmental issues to aid in managing liability for clients and minimizing any potential threat or undue harm from air contamination in their communities. Contact us to learn more on how we can help you address your environmental risks in a business-friendly approach.  

As seen in Cleaner & Launderer

Federal Government takes further steps toward regulating PFAS, Forever Chemicals 



On March 14, 2023, it was announced that the Biden-Harris Administration will be proposing the first-ever national standards for six (6) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or “forever chemicals”. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) held its first of two public listening sessions to obtain general comments about their proposed plans for enforcement of PFAS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the financial obligations for responsible parties of PFAS contamination to further their development of a CERCLA PFAS enforcement discretion policy. Both actions build on President Biden’s PFAS pollution action plan and the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which were started over two years ago with the objectives of controlling and addressing PFAS pollution and holding PFAS polluters accountable to safeguarding public health, and advancing environmental justice.  

If finalized, the Biden-Harris Administration proposal would regulate two (2) compounds, PFOA and PFOS, as individual contaminants with an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 part per trillion (ppt). Additionally, four (4) other PFAS (PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX Chemicals) would be regulated as a mixture. Their combined levels in water systems would be evaluated via a hazard index calculation to determine the potential risk. Furthermore, if this new drinking water regulation is finalized, public water systems would be required to monitor these chemicals, inform the public if PFAS levels in the drinking water exceed the new standard, and take action to reduce the PFAS levels. The EPA is now seeking input on this proposal by holding a public listening session on May 4, 2023, and accepting written comments before making a final ruling. The pre-publication version of this proposal is linked here.  

In another step, the EPA OECA held a public listening session that centered on the financial obligations of responsible parties as part of developing a CERCLA PFAS enforcement discretion policy. During this session, the EPA stated its intent to focus enforcement actions toward the PFAS manufacturing/discharging entities and suggested that it is considering allowing for exemptions to specific entities that “passively” receive or secondarily use materials that may potentially contain PFAS contamination. The list of potentially exempted entities currently consists of solid waste landfills, public water sources and public owned treatment works (POTW), farmers who apply biosolids, and fire departments and airports of municipal, state, and tribal sectors. While many commenters expressed appreciation of the EPA’s progress and consideration of exemptions, others found the EPAs plans to be unclear, specifically regarding the potential effects on stormwater permits, how municipal water suppliers will manage and fund PFAS treatment, and the potential for third party liability against the exempted services. The topic’s next EPA listening session will be held virtually on March 23, 2023.  Recordings for both listening sessions will be available via the EPA website here after the March 23, 2023 session.  

While these two proposals present progress, additional questions arise on the future of PFAS regulation implementation and the potential financial obligations and risks to municipalities and other sectors. For instance, we do not have a clear understanding of who will be held responsible for funding the cleanup of PFAS contamination via the aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), a.k.a. firefighting foam, releases at many airports and fire departments, since the EPA is proposing to exempt these entities. Based on the U.S. EPA’s prior comments, it is possible they would hold the manufacturer responsible for some costs, but the lines of evidence to demonstrate responsibility have yet to be defined, and there is a risk that municipalities and airports have not retained appropriate purchase records if needed. Additional potential risks include the responsibility of known exposures. Though the U.S. EPA is proposing some exclusion to responsibility for the cleanup of PFAS releases, the management of known and continued releases, such as POTW discharges, will likely require long-term mitigation and management.  

Despite these unknowns, some relief can be felt as funding addresses emerging contaminants like PFAS through the recent passing of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This law allows the distribution of $10 billion over the next five years to help make drinking water safe in affected communities. 

Those who used or interacted with PFAS during their business operations can face a variety of environmental exposures due to PFAS. Those insured should look into their historical commercial general liability (CGL) policies that may aid them in paying for the investigation, remediation, and legal defense of PFAS claims.

As the regulations for these emerging contaminants develop, we will continue to keep our eye on the factors that may affect our clients.  

*In Indiana and New Mexico, policies issued after this time period can also respond to environmental claims. Contact us to learn more.

No Need to Close Your Doors to Cleanup Contamination



Is your consultant listening? As consultants, we evaluate cleanup strategies based on the contaminant, site conditions, and their cost effectiveness. But what about what works for you? Has your consultant asked about your business operations and what cleanup approach works for you? Your interests need to be part of the cleanup plan. For example, many of you have heard the distressing stories of a dry-cleaner taking heavy financial losses because the environmental cleanup required the business to shut down. It’s bad enough to shut a business down at all, but I’ve stories where businesses were shut down for several weeks or more. As you know, once a customer finds another cleaner, getting them back typically doesn’t happen. However, this does not have to be the case. Businesses can maintain operations while having their environmental remediation needs addressed. 


Many invasive remedial technologies proposed to cleanup a source area or contaminant plume concentrate heavily on the most efficient approach to remove the contaminants. Often, they do not incorporate business needs of the building occupant into the remedial implementation plan, which leads to a financial hardship for the business owner. Invasive remedial technologies such as excavation, thermal extraction, soil vapor extraction (SVE), air-sparging, ozone-sparging, multi-phase extraction, and other remedial systems with above grade components can be very effective in meeting remedial objectives but may not be appropriate to meet your business needs. A good environmental consultant will incorporate your businesses operational needs into the remedial plan and work with you to identify an approach that is non-invasive, or at least minimally invasive so business operations can continue with minimal disruption.  

In a typical invasive event to install SVE and sparge wells, a drilling rig needs to access your interior space. These drilling rigs take up a lot of your business operational surface area and typically requires the equipment pertinent to your business to be moved or removed from the building entirely. This approach can require numerous well points to be installed since the effective radius of influence is centered on each point. Each of those points must be piped to the system trailer. These above ground pipes can take up more surface space and interferes with your business operations after the installation is done.  


Business friendly, non-invasive remedial technologies can alleviate the stress to your business, your staff, and yourself. These approaches can include some of the same technologies identified above, implemented in a way that does not interfere with your operations. A common and effective non-invasive approach is to use horizontal drilling techniques to install the SVE and air-sparge system components. The horizontal drill rig sets up access points outside the building, and space permitting, at a distance from the building to not interfere with your customer traffic. A horizontal drill rig can bore multiple lines from the same access point. These lines can be horizontally and vertically distributed to optimize well placement. Additionally, horizontal wells can have a greater area of influence from just one well screen installed along the target zone than the traditional vertical well method. Standard vertical well installation requires multiple well locations in a line to influence the same area as one horizontal well. The use of horizontal drilling methods can allow the business to stay in operation throughout the remedial system installation event. Additionally, there will be no encumbering piping components inside the building during remedial system operation.  

There are also minimally invasive remedial techniques that can be implemented to reduce the impact to business operations. Conducting remedial action through chemical and/or microbial injections can limit the time needed to access your business operational space. In comparison to an excavation event that can take a week to months and required significant if not complete access to your business space, an injection event can be completed in a couple days. It is possible to use small hand-cart size rigs that can maneuver around your business equipment limiting the need to stop business operation. The injection approach uses specifically designed mixtures to treat the impacts below your business operations. To reduce the chance of subsequent injections events, your environmental consultant can work with suppliers to careful design and tailor these chemical and microbial mixtures to meet site-specific conditions, which can increase the remedial rate and success of remedial actions at your property, reducing the chance for follow up events.  

Limited trenching is also a minimally invasive approach in comparison to others. Instead of trying to remove the contaminants via excavation or injections with a high density of locations, the installation of perforated pipes in the subsurface for an SVE or vapor mitigation system along accessible paths within your building could be sufficient to remediate the contaminant mass. An appropriate design could be installed in a short timeframe and allow for continued business operations during installation. Simple actions such as placing plywood over open trenches until the piping and backfill can be placed and the floor resealed will allow your business to continue operations through the installation.  

As with everything, cost is king. That is no different with environmental remediation and alternative remedial approaches. Therefore, a cost benefit analysis is a critical part of the assessment process. For example, horizontal drilling is much more costly per foot than conventional drilling. However, the cheaper cost of a conventional drilling approach compounded by the loss of revenue may be significantly more than selecting the expensive horizontal drilling operation that allows you to keep your business doors open during installation.  

Learn how to be a good neighbor during an environmental cleanup on a drycleaning property.

There are many different approaches to implement a business-friendly remedial action, those reviewed above are just a few. Your consultant should bend over backwards to minimize business interruption. Whether that requires working at night or over the weekends when your operations are closed or using hand equipment instead of mechanical drills and machinery, there is almost always a workaround. Your environmental consultant should listen to you and be able to provide you a comparison summary of different remedial approaches, the rough costs for each approach, anticipated timelines, and potential business interruptions for each approach, if any. In the end, there is no one answer that solves the “best approach” concern, but with the right environmental consultant by your side, you should be able to find the least restrictive approach that allows the remedial objectives to be met and keeps you financially stable with minimal business disruptions.  

Every project is different, every property owner has unique concerns and needs, and these environmental demands that interfere with your business are not fun or what you want. We are here to help make your environmental cleanup event as easy as possible.  Contact us to learn more on how we can help you address your environmental risks in a business-friendly approach.  

As seen in Cleaner & Launderer


R. Scott Powell, PE, LPG, Regional Director 

R. Scott Powell has 20+ years of environmental consulting experience. Powell’s expertise covers a wide variety of projects ranging from due diligence, site investigations, assessment of appropriate remedial technologies, to remedial system installation, operations, and maintenance. Powell’s experience includes sites with co-mingled contaminant plumes, chlorinated solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), petroleum, metals, asbestos, lead based paint, and various other hazardous materials. He manages complex relationships and fosters cohesive involvement of responsible parties and regulatory agencies. Powell manages negotiations with state and federal regulatory agencies and provides litigation support in matters concerning environmental issues.

Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments, A Checked Box for Lenders or a Valuable Tool for Buyers?



Buyers and sellers of property are familiar with the need to have Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESAs) prepared when there is a transaction or a refinancing of a property.  To most stakeholders, including the buyer, seller, and lender, the Phase I ESA is part of the due diligence checklist, simply a report like a home inspection report, to identify potential environmental concerns with a property.

In the environmental consulting industry, Phase Is are considered “loss leaders,” meaning there is little to no profit to be made conducting the Phase I.  Either the consulting company believes they must offer the service because their competitors offer it, or they believe that a certain percentage of Phase Is will require follow up environmental work because of the likelihood of contamination turned up during the investigation. Because the profit margin on a Phase I is at best slim, it is not uncommon for consultants to use lower paid and generally less experienced staff to conduct much of the Phase I. One side note, there is no project that carries with it more risk for the consulting firm than a Phase I, because if contamination is not identified during the Phase I, but is found later in time, the consultant and its liability provider could be on the hook for damages.

For the lending officer, their goal is to get the loan approved by the internal lending committee so they can get the sales commission. There is stiff competition between banks, and the cost of a Phase I can make a difference in a sale or not.

These dynamics set the stage for the Phase I becoming a commodity in the marketplace, and little thought is given to the value of the Phase I and, conversely, to the risk of having a Phase I completed that does not adhere to ASTM Standard E1527.

So, what is the true value of a Phase I ESA? What is often misunderstood or unknown to Buyers and Lenders is the actual liability protection afforded to potential purchasers by correctly completing a Phase I ESA. This liability protection is known as achieving bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) status through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). People acquiring property, even with known contamination, can obtain BFPP protection if “all-appropriate inquiry” (i.e., completing a Phase I ESA) is completed prior to purchasing the property. The purchaser also must meet continuing obligations regarding any known or suspected contamination, including taking reasonable steps to stop any continuing release, preventing a future release of hazardous substances, ensuring property occupants are not being exposed to contamination, and there is not a threat of exposure to off-property persons. Obtaining BFPP protection can prove financially invaluable to the property owner or tenant, potentially saving hundreds of thousands or even millions in cleanup cost responsibility. Property owners without BFPP protection that did not contribute to or cause contamination at a property can still be held liable for cleanup costs by state and/or federal environmental regulators.

The Phase I ESA is a complex document that must be completed in its entirety to afford the prospective purchaser BFPP. Minor details that are often missed in Phase Is can result in a court rejecting a BFPP claim for a property owner. These minor details include but are not limited to not listing the exact purchasing entity as having reliance on the report, the prospective purchaser not completing the required questionnaire, and having an expired Phase I at the time of closing. This last point is especially important as we hear many parties state that they don’t need a Phase I ESA, as there was one previously completed for the property. The truth is that environmental standards change, and what may have been acceptable several years ago may constitute an environmental concern under today’s environmental regulations. Unless the exact prospective purchasing entity is listed as having reliance in the Phase I ESA and the report is under 180 days old, the Phase I is likely not valid for BFPP purposes. Additionally, it should be noted that the 180-day window for Phase I ESAs is from the date the first record is reviewed by the report preparer, not the date the report was issued. 

Baseball great Leo Durocher once said that baseball is a game that many attend, but few understand. This can absolutely be applied to the world of environmental due diligence and Phase I ESAs. There are many environmental companies who claim to complete Phase I ESAs, but their product often will not afford the purchaser BFPP, even if it was completed prior to the property purchase. It’s the nuances that make the difference in the world of environmental due diligence. If you have questions or a need for environmental due diligence of Phase I ESA services, EnviroForensics would be happy to discuss your situation and, if appropriate, prepare a complete Phase I ESA that will provide liability protection and peace of mind for you and your business. 

Disclaimer: Some states do not accept BFPP status as absolute liability protection.  We are not lawyers and cannot give legal advice; as such, all Buyers should consult with qualified legal counsel when buying property.    

Contact us with your questions about real estate due diligence.

As seen in Cleaner & Launderer

Steve Henshaw, PG, CEO

With 30+ years of experience, Stephen Henshaw holds professional registrations in numerous states. As Officer of EnviroForensics, Henshaw serves as a client manager and technical manager on complex projects involving contaminated and derelict properties, creative litigation, deceased land owners, tax liens, non-performing bank notes, resurrecting defunct companies, and cost recovery. Henshaw’s expertise includes a comprehensive understanding of past and current industry and waste handling practices and the fate and transport of chlorinated solvents in soil and groundwater. He has served as a testifying expert for plaintiffs and defendants on high-profile cases involving causation and timing of releases, contaminant dispersion, allocation, damages, past costs, and closure estimates. He has a strong knowledge of state and federal regulations, insurance law, RCRA, and CERCLA. He has managed several hundred projects, including landfills, solvent and petroleum refineries, foundries, metal plating shops, food processors, dry cleaners, wood treating facilities, chemical distribution facilities, aerospace manufacturing facilities, and transporters and provides strategy instrumental in funding projects and moving them to closure.

Casey McFall, CHMM, Director of Real Estate Due Diligence

Casey McFall is the Director of Commercial Real Estate Services and a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager with 15+ years of experience as an environmental consultant. He has managed numerous petroleum and chlorinated solvent projects throughout various stages of investigation, remediation, and closure. His professional experience includes all areas of project management, due diligence, reporting, and regulatory negotiation. He has experience managing projects in Alaska, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Washington. Casey also has experience acting as an environmental liaison for municipalities, offering expert advice regarding environmental issues and providing risk communication to stakeholders and the community by explaining complex environmental issues in a concise, understandable way.