innovation - a&wma publications website

The Magazine for Environmental Managers

Innovationat the Nexus of Wastewater Process Technology and Energy

September 2016

Table of Contents

em • The Magazine for Environmental Managers • A&WMA • September 2016

Columns

EPA Research Highlights: Human Problems WarrantHuman Solutions—How EPA is integrating social and environmental science to help solve the most challengingand consequential problems related to air, climate, and energyby Dan Costa and Bryan Hubbell

PM File: Managing an Information Collection Request Projectby David L. Elam, Jr.

Association News

Message from the President: The Changing Seasonsby Brad Waldron

IPEP Quarterly: New Location Offers New Opportunitiesby Diana Kobus, IPEP Executive Director

In Memoriam: Past President Morton Sterling (1926–2016)

Departments

Canadian Report

Calendar of Events

JA&WMA Table of Contents Vol. 66, No. 9

Oilfield Wastewater Managementby Ryan Leatherbury, Weston Solutions Inc.

An overview of the use and characteristic risks of disposalwells for oilfield wastewater management.

The Role of Anaerobic Digestion in WastewaterManagementby Vincent Vutai and Mingming Lu, University of Cincinnati;and Xin (Cissy) Ma, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

A look at the role anaerobic digestion can play in energy recovery from wastewater using two case study examples.

Innovation at the Nexus of Wastewater ProcessTechnology and Energy


Each year, it seems like the leaves change at different times.Maybe it is just my nostalgic mindset looking back to the yearsof my youth and recalling the crunch of leaves and crisp air,but living in the desert, we don’t see a great deal of autumnunless we get on the road and drive to it. Many people toldme that I would miss the change of the seasons, and I amhappy to report that I don’t. But the reason I don’t is becausethey seem to be different than they were.

My inclination is to remember the Rockwellian standards ofthe seasons. Red cheeks. Raking leaves. Umbrellas protectingpeople from the sun. But over the years, there has been ablending of lines. In Maine where I grew up, things aren’t aspredictable as they used to be. Pittsburgh has a similar situation,just in slightly different ways than coastal Maine. Winters can be milder seemingly dragging out the seasons of springand fall.

Not so here in the desert. We have different “seasons.” Julybrings monsoon season where this year we had massive hailand flooding. Temperatures do change dramatically, but theyare brought in by winds from California and leave in just asabrupt a fashion.

What is the new normal for our seasons? Are parents stillgoing to be telling their children about snow caves and runnersleds? Will a neighborhood snowball fight exist anywhereother than the northernmost areas? Am I the only one whowonders if there is a way to go back?

The change of seasons is nature’s way of cleansing itself andgetting a clean start for another productive period. If theworld is robbed of that, we can’t even begin to understandthe potential ramifications. All of a sudden the outcome ofthat snowball fight seems far less significant than it did as achild—something which was unfathomable at the time.

While the romance of the seasons isn’t something I miss, I do worry about missing the seasons. Not in the same waythat others thought I would after moving to the desert, ratherin the sense that everyone may eventually miss them. Theymay change enough that we are forced to redefine how wethink of them. em

Message from the President

by Brad Waldron » [email protected]

TheChangingSeasons

This article considers the use and characteristic risks of disposal wells

for oilfield wastewater management.

OilfieldWastewater Management

Oilfield Wastewater Management by Ryan Leatherbury




Wastewater management and disposal constitute a significantportion of the operating budget for many upstream oil andgas companies. Often, the most environmentally-sound andcost-effective method of managing wastewater is to inject itinto a permitted Class II disposal well. The benefits of usingdisposal wells are tempered by material business risks associ-ated with their use. What are these risks and how can theybe mitigated?

Produced Water is Oilfield WastewaterOilfield wastewater, commonly known as produced water, iswater that is brought to the surface during the production ofoil and gas. Produced water can be either (1) naturally presentin the formation with the hydrocarbons, or (2) residual waste-water that has been injected into the formation in order tostimulate production or to maintain formation pressure. Thequality of this wastewater varies greatly by formation, but typically contains salts, hydrocarbons, metals, other organiccompounds, chemical additives (from hydraulic fracturing),and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). The U.S.oil and gas industry (onshore only) is expected to generatemore than 20 billion barrels (840 billion gallons) of producedwater in 2016.1 The characteristics of the wastewater and thesheer volume that is produced make management and disposal of produced water a challenge for operators.

Historically, roughly half (46%) of all onshore produced wateris actually reinjected into producing formations for enhancedoil recovery (EOR), as illustrated in Figure 1.2 The remaining10 or so billion barrels per year must be gathered, stored,

Figure 1: Onshore produced water management, 2012.2

moved, treated, and disposed of, typically one well at a time.Water handling and disposal represents a significant cost—estimated to be $36.9 billion in 2015.1 Today, most producedwater that is disposed of is injected into a permitted Class IIdisposal well.

Disposal of Oilfield WastewaterThe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 and itsamendments protect underground sources of drinking water(USDWs) from contamination by prohibiting the injection ofmaterials into USDWs. Under the auspices of SDWA, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established theunderground injection control (UIC) program, which regulateswells used for various purposes, including the safe disposal of hazardous waste.

The UIC program regulates injection through six classes of well:

• Class I – Deep Injection of Hazardous and Non-HazardousWastes

• Class II – Oil and Gas Related Fluids• Class III – Fluids for Solution Mining• Class IV – Shallow Injection of Hazardous and Radioactive

Wastes• Class V – Non-Hazardous Fluids into or Above USDWs• Class VI – Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

The Bentsen Amendment to the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR §261.4(b)(5)) includes a specific



exemption for exploration and production wastes that classifyproduced water as a nonhazardous waste. This exemption allows produced water to be injected into Class II wells,rather into Class I wells under the UIC program.

Since produced water is generated at every oil and gas welland there are over 500,000 producing onshore wells in theUnited States, the challenge of gathering and moving wateris substantial. When water hauling accounts for more than80% of all water handling costs,1 and spills of produced waterhave more significant effects on the environment than crudeoil spills, minimizing the distance that produced water mustbe moved becomes paramount.

Class II injection wells, when allowed by regulation and madepractical by subsurface geology, can be installed near producingfields, thereby minimizing the distance that water must behauled, minimizing cost and environmental risk. The RCRAexemption for exploration and production waste and the costof handling and moving water are the true drivers for thewidespread use of Class II injection wells for disposal.

Risks of Using Class II Injection WellsIf using Class II injection wells is the most cost-effective andenvironmentally friendly method for disposing of producedwater, what is risky about using them? As in any business decision, cost must be balanced with risk and that balanceshould be reevaluated regularly as the business evolves. Theonshore oil and gas industry is seeing a rapidly changingbusiness environment, including new operations such as unconventional drilling, sometimes very close to areas unfa-miliar with the oil and gas industry; the identification of inducedseismicity; changing regulation; and continuing and increasinglystrident public opposition to fossil fuels development. Each ofthese issues changes the risk profile for using Class II wellsfor disposal.

Increased ScrutinyOnshore operators rely upon Class II disposal wells to helpcontrol costs. If these wells become less available, operatorswill be exposed to the risk of increased costs. Media coverageof several recent issues is increasing the public visibility andscrutiny of the use of Class II disposal wells. Class II disposalwells must be permitted by the state or EPA and issues suchas induced seismicity, improper permitting by states, and laxoversight by EPA of the UIC program are putting pressureon this permitting process.

Induced seismicity, particularly in Oklahoma, led the OklahomaCorporation Commission (OCC) to put in place a volume reduction plan for disposal wells in specific areas of the statein August 2015. This plan curtailed the disposal volume by

38% in the affected area.3 While the OCC admits that thescience justifying this plan is not yet settled, it was compelledto act, stating:

“This is an issue completely outside the scope of the experience of not only this agency, but all our partneragencies and stakeholders as well. There was a timewhen the scientific, legal, policy and other concerns related to this issue had to first be carefully researchedand debated in order to provide a valid framework forsuch action. That time is over. Based on the researchand analysis of the data compiled, we must continue totake progressive steps, and do so as quickly as possibleas part of the continuing efforts to resolve this complexand challenging issue.”

Operators in Oklahoma now face the real risk of the immediatereduction in availability of disposal wells and increased costsassociated with produced water disposal.

For instance, a recent article published online in WorldOilmagazine,4 reported:

“[Oklahoma’s] disposal regulations will lead to furthercuts in oil production, says Kim Hatfield, vice chairmanof the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, atrade group of oil and gas producers. ‘If you can’t dis-pose, you can’t produce,’ he says. Another option is totreat and recycle the water, which [experts] estimatewould cost from $2.50–3/bbl [barrel]. Hatfield says thereality is closer to $5. Given the state’s 10-to-1 ratio ofwater to oil production that would mean oil prices needto be at least in the $50/bbl range for producers tocover their water treatment costs. ‘I probably review atleast one project a week promising to turn bad waterinto good,’ Hatfield says. ‘Can they do it? Absolutely.Can they do it economically? No.’”

In California, EPA revealed that the state’s Division of Oil,Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), which had beendelegated primacy of the UIC program by EPA, had permittedsome disposal of produced water into non-exempt aquiferswith nearby water supply wells.5 This revelation has led thestate to undertake a comprehensive review of its UIC programand the EPA to issue new guidance for the review of aquiferexemption requests from the states. California’s UIC programand the permitting process for Class II disposal wells will certainly change in light of these revelations.

Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)has issued a report on EPA’s oversight of the UIC program andfound that it needs improvement. The GAO found that among



other things, “EPA [should] review emerging risks related toclass II program safeguards and ensure that it can effectivelyoversee and efficiently enforce class II programs.”6

The publicly reported impacts to citizens through seismicitycoupled with the identification of shortcomings of the stateUIC programs and EPA’s oversight of them leads one to expectchanges to the Class II disposal well regulations sooner orlater. Changes to regulations, as always, will introduce newbusiness risks to those operators who rely upon disposal wellsand could materially change their operating costs.

Approaches for Mitigating RisksUnderstanding that the use of Class II disposal wells representsa material portion of onshore oil and gas operating costs, it iswise for those operators to be proactive in mitigating the risksassociated with their use. The following approaches can helpoperators manage their risk.

Pre-Screen Class II Wells and OperatorsOperators who use commercial disposal wells pay a third-party by the barrel for accepting and injecting their producedwater. By transferring the waste, the operator also transferssome of the risk associated with the waste. By pre-screeningthird-party operators prior to use, operators can help ensurethat they are working with a reliable counterparty. Operatorsshould vet third-party disposal facilities for:

• financial stability;• history of environmental violations;• well construction;• mechanical integrity testing and pressure monitoring

history; and • health and safety training/recordkeeping.

Close the Loop on Waste Tracking Understanding and being able to document how much produced water has been disposed of and where providesoperators with not only a basis for cost management, but alsowith a mechanism to understand potential risks associatedwith waste disposal activities. Even though produced water is an exempt waste under RCRA, the RCRA waste trackingrequirements provide a good guide for waste tracking documentation. Tracking waste shipments from the point ofgeneration to the point of disposal and ensuring that generationand disposal volume match is a wise best-practice. Shouldthere ever be an issue with a disposal facility the operatorwould be able to determine if any of their waste was involved.

Regularly Audit Well Operators Even if commercial disposal facilities were thoroughly reviewedprior to use, regular auditing of commercial (and operator-owned) disposal facilities helps manage risk. Most Class II disposal facilities are required to file regular reports undertheir permits. By ensuring that these reports are filed timely,operators can ensure that their waste resides in facilities thatare being run responsibly. Any discrepancies identified by audits can be examined across the enterprise to determine if there are patterns or trends in the waste management program that should be addressed.

Have and Follow a Waste Management Plan Planning for handling, transporting, and disposing of waste is the best way to manage risks. Through the process ofpreparing a plan that documents anticipated sources, volumes,the nature of wastes, and their ultimate resting place, operatorshave the opportunity to minimize waste volumes, cost andrisk, simultaneously. While there is no regulation that requiressuch a plan, having one provides not only a planning tool,but a standard for audit, and written guidance for operationsteams to work within. em

Ryan Leatherbury is a client service manager for Weston Solutions Inc. He is Weston’s Oil and Gas sector leader and manages We-ston’s Eagle Ford Shale Service Center in San Antonio, TX. With more than 20 years of environmental investigation, remediation, andcompliance experience, Leatherbury’s specialty is environmental information management, particularly for environmental investigation,risk management, and enterprise compliance.

References1. Capper, L. U.S. Onshore Water Management Spending 2015; CAP Resources, Houston, TX, 2015.2. Veil, J. U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012; Ground Water Protection Council, Oklahoma City, OK, 2015.3. Media Advisory: Oil and Gas Disposal Well Volume Reduction Plan; Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Dated August 3, 2015.4. Philips, M. Boom times for Oklahoma’s wastewater come to a shaky end; www.worldoil.com March 17, 2016.5. EPA Region IX. EPA Letter to California’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Dated July 17, 2014.6. U.S. Government Accountability Office. EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs

Improvement, June 2014.

This article considers the role anaerobic digestion can play in energy

recovery from wastewater.

Anaerobic Digestionin Wastewater Management

The Role of

The Role of Anaerobic Digestion in Wastewater Management by Vincent Vutai et al.




Wastewater systems potentially contribute significant negative impacts not only on regional water bodies, but alsoon global energy, climate, and sustainability. Energy recoveryfrom wastewater is one way to reduce the negative impactsand achieve greater resource recovery.1,2 The most commonform of energy recovery is anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion is the biological degradation of organic matters inthe absence of oxygen and converts the chemical energy inorganic carbon to biogas.3 Typically, anaerobic digestion hasbeen used for wastewater sludge treatment and reduction,agricultural manure management, and food waste manage-ment.3 To accomplish more sustainable resource recoveryand reduce overall energy footprint, wastewater can be regarded as renewable resource to convert embedded chemical energy to biogas.4 And as a result, anaerobic digestion can play a significant role in energy recovery from wastewater.

In the United States, currently there are 16,000 publiclyowned treatment works. Of those, only 544 use anaerobicdigestion.3 That means currently there are at least 15,456 facilities that send the sludge to landfills or incinerators thatattributes to global warming and air pollutions. The importanceof anaerobic digestion arises with the ability to convert the organic compounds in waste to biogas. Biogas is comprisedof 60–70% methane and 30–40% carbon dioxide, as well asother trace gases. A combined heat and power (CHP) enginecan then use biogas to create electricity and heat. Anotheroption is to use the compressed biogas as fuel for fleet vehicles. For fleet vehicles, biogas is compressed in order topower alternative fuel vehicles. Compressed methane or natural gas (CNG) is often viewed as a cleaner alternative to diesel fuel. With this ability to create electricity and fuel,

wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) can not only powertheir entire plant, but also receive revenue by sending excesselectricity to the grid.

Currently, few WWTPs are sending electricity back to thegrid. Most WWTPs that use anaerobic digestion as one of the treatment process either use biogas to heat the buildings,heating influents or flare the excess biogas or profit from “tipping fees” paid by other local companies. A tipping fee is a fee charged for the amount of waste disposed of by customers to a landfill.5,6 Not only can anaerobic digestioncreate energy from waste, but also through the anaerobic digestion process, digestate that is the material remainingafter the methanogenesis stage is called “biosolids.” Thebiosolids can be further treated to produce higher qualitybiosolids either grade A or B, which can be sent to localfarms or nursery stores as a fertilizing compound or as soil conditioner.

The Co-Eat ModelThe Co-Eat model that was developed by U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) researchers as a co-digestion eco-nomic analysis tool allows the user to input current operatingparameters that tailor the model to plant specific situation.7

This model intends to see the impacts of co-digestion on anexisting anaerobic digestion system. The model was developedin order to see the impacts of what co-digestion can do haveon an existing anaerobic digestion system.

The Co-Eat model can predict biogas production based onvolatile solids (VS) destroyed per day or per year.7 It can alsoestimate other economic parameters such as tipping fees,value of the biogas, and disposal cost. There is a scenario

Figure 1: Anaerobic digestion process. Source: JFS & Associates http://jfsassociates.co.uk/how-does-it-work/.



At the Quasar operation, digestion feed was coming fromsludge from WWTPs, wastes from poultry, grain, food, andother local manufacturing companies such as Smuckers.These multiple feed inputs are called “co-digestion” becauseof the mixture of different types of organic wastes.9 Quasar’sfacility was operating at around 1 million gallons per day(MGD) and receiving around 60,000 gallons per day ofcombined food waste, fats, oils, and greases. Typically, foodwaste is around 5% total solids.10 With the biogas generated,the CHPs were able to heat the inflow, power the entire plant,and send excess electricity back to the grid. The biosolids thatwere generated as byproducts of anaerobic digestion weresent to local farms as fertilizer. However, most of the profit

Table 1. Biogas production and values using Co-Eat model: Quasar Operation.

Quasar Biogas Production Using Co-Eat

• Combined Heat and Power Efficiency (CHP) = 28%

• Biogas to Natural Gas Conversion Factor = 60%

• Total Solids % for Food Waste = 8%

• Total Solids % for Fats, Oil, Grease = 8%

• Total Solids % for 1 MGD = 1%

• Natural Gas ($/unit) = $2.44

• Electricity ($/unit) = $0.05

• Tipping Fees ($/unit) = $0.07

Quasar

4/20/16

Biogas Production (ft3/day) 227,091

Annual Biogas Production (ft3/yr) 101,138,396

Electrical Energy Generated via CHP (KWh/yr) 4,780,458

Biogas Value (Boiler + Flare) ($/yr) 531,242

Value of Electrical Energy via CHP ($/yr) 239,023

Value of Compressed Natural Gas (Bioler + Vehicle Fuel) ($/yr) 1,126,515

Scientists around the world are turning wastewater sewageinto renewable energy. In Bristol England, the GEN-eco Bio-Bus is fueled by biogas collected via an anaerobic digester.South Korea has a wastewater treatment plant that useshuman wastes to power itself. And a wastewater treatmentplant in California converts biogas into electricity that ispumped back to the grid. Read more in “Powered by poopand pee?” by Alison Pearce Stevens.

Editor's Note: Anaerobic Digestion in the News

generator built into the model that generates theoretical co-digestion scenarios in order to compare the economicsand physical characteristics to that current process. Thismodel was used in the following two case studies.

Case Study: Quasar Wooster, OHQuasar is a company that uses anaerobic digestion technologythat works with a municipal WWTP to produce biogas fromsludge.8 Quasar uses the biogas to generate electricity andthermal heat, natural gas, or compressed natural gas.8 Thecompany’s mission is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, divert waste from landfills, and contribute to a cleaner environment while receive economic benefits.8



received was through tipping fees of these local food/agriculturalcompanies who sent the waste to Quasar instead of landfill orincineration. Table 1 shows the results of biogas generation,the energy recovered and the revenues from different biogas applications.

Case Study: Dayton Wastewater TreatmentPlant Dayton, OHThe Dayton Water Reclamation plant is a much larger facilitycompared to Quasar facility. The Dayton plant uses primarysludge and secondary activated sludge from the municipalwastewater. It operates around 38 MGD. With that largeinput, the facility is able to create a lot of biogas, averagingaround 600,000–700,000 ft3 per day. Table 2 presents results from the Co-Eat model that show the potential of biogas for Dayton Water Reclamation Plant.7

Some operating parameters were made identical to comparethe two facilities such as CHP efficiency, biogas to natural gasconversion factor, total solids percentage for 1 MGD, naturalgas ($/unit), electricity ($/unit), and tipping fees ($/unit). However, operating parameters that were assumed for thebase case of Quasar was the total solids percentage of foodwaste, fats, oils, and greases.

It can be seen that using biogas for electrical energy via CHPand CNG, biogas could be a very profitable operation for awastewater facility. If sending the sludge to a landfill or an

incinerator, a plant that is in comparable size as Dayton’s plantcan lose potential revenue of anywhere between $2 and $3million per year.

Comparing the Quasar operation with the Dayton WaterReclamation Plant, one can see the potential benefits of co-digesting different local food wastes. Dayton primarily usesprimary sludge and waste activated sludge compared toQuasar’s operation of food and agricultural waste. But com-pared to Quasar, Dayton Water Reclamation Plant is roughly38 times larger than Quasar’s operation with an influent rateof 38 MGD compared to Quasar’s 1 MGD. In terms of biogasproduction, Quasar is not far from Dayton’s biogas production.Roughly, the Dayton plant is creating only 62% more biogasproduction than Quasar. This is significant because Quasaris much smaller operation than Dayton Water ReclamationPlant. This shows the benefit that local food waste and agri-cultural waste with higher organic contents can have on thebiogas production.

ConclusionTraditionally, anaerobic digestion is seen as a waste manage-ment resource. Many facilities and plants that we have spokento say they are unable to implement anaerobic digestiontechnology because of the high capital costs to either buildnew digesters or upgrade their existing digester technologyfor the introduction of other organic wastes such as foodwaste.

Table 2. Biogas production and values using Co-Eat model: Dayton WWTP.

Dayton WWT Biogas Production Using Co-Eat

• Combined Heat and Power Efficiency (CHP) = 28%

• Biogas to Natural Gas Conversion Factor = 60%

• Total Solids % for 1 MGD = 1%

• Natural Gas ($/unit) = $2.44

• Electricity ($/unit) = $0.05

• Tipping Fees ($/unit) = $0.07

Dayton Water Reclamation Plant

4/26/16

Biogas Production (ft3/day) 684,295

Annual Biogas Production (ft3/yr) 249,767,753

Electrical Energy Generated via CHP (KWh/yr) 11,805,649

Biogas Value (Boiler + Flare) ($/yr) 1,311,937.31

Value of Electrical Energy via CHP ($/yr) 590,283.00

Value of Compressed Natural Gas (Bioler + Vehicle Fuel) ($/yr) 2,782,002.00


Time and funding constrains are other obstacles many facilitiesand plants face when trying to adopt anaerobic digestion.Many process engineers do not have the time or resourcesto further investigate new technologies such as anaerobic digestion due to their existing workloads and the complexityof retrofitting the existing plants. Many plants and facilities either keep status quo or hire outside consultants if budgetallows.

Another obstacle facing anaerobic digestion application is the stigma that biosolids as composting waste produces afoul odor.

Aside from all the obstacles, anaerobic digestion can be agreat technology on energy recovery and potential revenue


Acknowledgment:The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the University of Cincinnati Research Training Program supported thisproject. The authors would like to acknowledge Phil Bennington from Dayton Reclamation Plant for providing the datarequired for this project along with the continued support and encouragement, the staff from Quasar for providing atour of their facility, as well as the necessary information regarding their operation, and U.S. EPA researchers Dr. SteveRock and Jonathan Ricketts for the discussions of the Co-Eat model.

Disclaimer:The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of specific products or processes does not represent endorsement bythe U.S Environmental Protection Agency.

Vincent Vutai and Mingming Lu are both with the Department of Biomedical, Chemical, and Environmental Engineering at theUniversity of Cincinnati. Xin (Cissy) Ma is with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management ResearchLaboratory, Sustainable Technology Division, Cincinnati, OH. E-mail: [email protected].

References1. McCarty, P.L.; Bae, J.; Kim, J. Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a Net Energy Producer–Can This be Achieved?; Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, (17), 7100-7106.2. Guest, J.; Skerlos, S.; Barnard, J.; Beck, M.; Daigger, G.; Hilger, H.; Jackson, S.; Karvazy, K.; Kelly, L.; Macpherson, L.; Mihelcic, J.; Pramanik, A.; Raskin, L.; Van

Loosdrecht, M.; Yeh, D.; Love, N. A New Planning and Design Paradigm to Achieve Sustainable Resource Recovery from Wastewater; Environ. Sci. Technol.2009, 43, 6126-6130.

3. Ma, X.; Xue, X.; González-Mejía, A.; Garland, J.; Cashdollar, J., Sustainable Water Systems for the City of Tomorrow—A Conceptual Framework; Sustainability2015, 7, (9), 12071.

4. Grant, S.B.; Saphores, J.-D.; Feldman, D.L.; Hamilton, A.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Cook, P.L.M.; Stewardson, M.; Sanders, B.F.; Levin, L.A.; Ambrose, R.F.; Deletic, A.;Brown, R.; Jiang, S. C.; Rosso, D.; Cooper, W.J.; Marusic, I. Taking the “Waste” Out of “Wastewater” for Human Water Security and Ecosystem Sustainability; Science2012, 337, (6095), 681-686.

5. California Energy Commission. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/biomass/anaerobic.html (accessed June 18, 2016), 6. Waste Management. See http://www.wm.com/glossary.jsp (accessed June 18, 2016), 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Organics: Co-Digestion Economic Analysis Tool (CoEAT). See https://archive.epa.gov/region9/organics/web/html/

index-2.html (accessed June 18, 2016), 8. Quasar Energy Group. See http://www.quasarenergygroup.com/pages/quasar.html (accessed June 18, 2016).9. JFS & Associates. See http://jfsassociates.co.uk/how-does-it-work/.10. Moriarty, K. Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste in St. Bernard, Louisiana: A Study Prepared in Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the

RE-Powering America's Land Initiative, Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites; NREL/TP-7A30-57082, 2013.

generation. Sludge from wastewater treatment plants is beingsent to landfills or burnt in incinerators, creating greenhousegases that affect the environment while the utilities do not tapinto the revenue potential. If the biogas is harnessed from thesludge and wastes from local food and agricultural industries,it can achieve overall system efficiency with economic andenvironmental benefits. Implementing this technology wouldallow reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

For our future work, we want to explore the return on invest-ment when implementing a new anaerobic digestion systemfor a facility. The system analysis such as Life Cycle Assessment(LCA) should be done not just for anaerobic digestion unitprocess, but the system of wastewater treatment train as awhole to evaluate trade-offs of this new technology. em

Human Problems Warrant Human Solutions:

How EPA is integrating social and environmental scienceto help solve the most challenging and consequential

problems related to air, climate, and energyby Dan Costa and Bryan Hubbell

EPA Research Highlights




Society continues to face compelling problems associatedwith climate change and air quality as it transitions towardlow-carbon energy production systems and usage patterns.Traditional approaches to resolving such problems tend toplace a greater emphasis on the contributions of natural scienceresearch, which can eclipse opportunities for integrating social and natural sciences through interdisciplinary research.Considering the inextricable links between the social and natural or environmental components of these types of prob-lems, it is essential for research institutions to adopt interdisci-plinary research approaches that can illuminate innovative,previously unexamined solutions to environmental pollution.

The Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) research program in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development has positioned itself to be achampion of interdisciplinary, social-environmental science.The ACE program possesses a relatively broad mandate toaddress ecological and health problems associated with environmental pollution, and it has spearheaded efforts tomake the research more interdisciplinary and systems-basedto achieve holistic solutions. As such, the goal of incorporatingsocial sciences into ACE’s research portfolio is to broaden theunderstanding of health hazards posed by air pollution and

climate change, while arriving at solutions that combine regulatory, community, and individual behavioral elements to protect health and well-being. We believe that integratingsocial sciences into the research process at every stage, fromhypothesis formulation through the publication and commu-nication of results, can enhance EPA’s mission of protectingpublic health from environmental pollution.

New Research FocusFor more than 40 years, EPA has issued science-based airquality standards and regulations, which have resulted ingreat improvements to air quality and public health acrossthe United States. While significant progress has been made,there are still millions of people in the United States who live in areas where poor air quality is a concern and climatechange is impacting public health and the environment. Reducing risks will require the translation of science for useby communities and individuals so they can take action to reduce exposures and protect themselves from the harmfuleffects of air pollution and impacts of climate change. Thiswill require research that elucidates the social aspects of exposure and risk, as well as obtaining and disseminating improved air quality information at the local level.



ACE has developed a new research focus area titled “ProtectingEnvironmental Public Health and Wellbeing,” in order to better integrate and translate science that supports regulatorystandards, while broadening its usefulness to a wider audience.This topic is ripe for the development of interdisciplinary social-environmental research collaborations, and ACE researchers are taking steps to infuse social science researchperspectives into their projects.

A key part of this research is the identification of modifiablefactors, including social and economic factors that contributeto health risks from exposure to air pollution. For example,understanding how social stress (e.g., exposure to crime andpoverty) may exacerbate the impacts of air pollution on respiratory health and may lead to greater focus on reducingair pollution exposures for populations with high levels of social stress.

Wildfire Smoke and Health Risk Communication WorkshopACE has identified several near-term activities that will helpestablish the underlying tools and infrastructure needed tosupport interdisciplinary social-environmental science research.A key effort underway is the Wildfire Smoke and Health Risk Communication Workshop, scheduled to occur in lateSeptember 2016. This pioneering workshop will place sociol-ogists, behavioral scientists, psychologists, risk communicators,

and other social science experts alongside environmental scientists and community and institutional stakeholders to investigate the issues associated with communicating, comprehending, and managing health risks associated withwildfire smoke exposure. The workshop has two purposes:(1) to develop a clear formulation of the problem that reflectsperspectives from both social and natural scientists, as well as key stakeholders, to guide future research efforts; and (2)to evaluate the process of an interdisciplinary problem formulation exercise to help inform future interdisciplinarysocial-environmental research endeavors. If you would like tolearn more about the results of this effort, we plan to providemore information on EPA’s Wildland Fire Research web pageafter the workshop.

Social Sciences ExchangeA large part of integrating social sciences into ACE’s researchinvolves cultivating an understanding among natural scientistsof the range of theories, methods, data, and tools that areemployed by social scientists, and how these might be appliedto environmental research questions. ACE is working withothers in EPA to increase awareness of the value of social science perspectives among natural scientists, and reachingout to the academic social sciences community to open upchannels for interaction. The desired result is to establish a vastnetwork of social science expertise, supported by innovativedigital infrastructure, to draw on both Agency and external

Attend the only conference focusing on advances in the scienti�c understanding of visibility,aerosols, and regional haze. Plus, learn the latest new technology and practical solutions from industry and academic experts.

Conference highlights include:

• Plenary Session speakers: Ann Marie Carlton, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Irvine and Bjørn Samset, Senior Researcher, Center for International Climate and Energy Research, Oslo, Norway

• Panels on the Regional Haze Rule, WESTAR Region Visibility, and Air Quality in a Changing Climate

• Over 100 technical presentations and posters

• Six professional development courses

• Grand Teton National Park Excursion and Night Sky Program

View the Conference Program and register today at http://visibility.awma.org.



experts. This “social sciences exchange” will be used to supportinterdisciplinary social-environmental research planning andserve as a source of potential research collaborators.

In considering where ACE might invest in interdisciplinary social-environmental research, we identified several topicareas that have a high degree of potential overlap betweensocial and environmental systems that could benefit from interdisciplinary approaches. They include:

1. Impacts of climate change and air pollution on humanhealth and the environment;

2. Quantifying and valuing impacts of climate and air pollution on ecosystem services;

3. Impacts of vulnerability, susceptibility, and modifiablefactors on air pollution exposure and health responses;

4. Benefits, costs, and economic impacts of climate and airquality mitigation and adaptation programs;

5. Impacts of future change (beyond just climate) and energy system evolution;

6. Next generation air monitoring technology, visualizationand impacts on behavior, exposures, and health; and

7. Health messaging and risk communication.

SummaryBuilding on the lessons learned from the upcoming WildfireSmoke and Health Risk Communication Workshop, ACE willbe engaging the social science community to determine thebest ways to integrate social science perspectives to addressthese social-environmental problems. ACE’s expanded focuson public health and wellbeing provides the ideal platformfor bringing social and environmental researchers together to jointly formulate problems and begin to develop solutions.Recognizing that both the problems and solutions require amore integrated understanding of the human element willallow society to address environmental issues more effectivelyand comprehensively. em

More Information:For more information on the research discussed in this column, contact Ann Brown; phone: 1-919-541-7818; e-mail:[email protected].

Dan Costa, Sc.D, DABT, is the National Program Director for the Air, Climate, and Energy research program in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development. He oversees the planning of the research to support policies to protectair quality, take action on climate change, and understand the human health and environmental impacts of current and future energyalternatives.

Bryan Hubbell is the Senior Advisor for Science and Policy in the Health and Environmental Impacts Division in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. He serves as the key liaison with the Air, Climate, and Energy(ACE) research program, and is collaborating with the ACE program to enhance integration of social sciences into their research program.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the official views of theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

PM File by David L. Elam, Jr.


An Information Collection Request (ICR) is a set of documentsthat describes reporting, recordkeeping, survey, and other information collection requirements that a federal agency imposes on the public. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)requires that every federal agency must obtain approval fromthe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collectingidentical or similar information from 10 or more members ofthe public. ICR requirements can vary in complexity, rangingfrom a request for existing information that is readily availableto one that requires the production of substantial historicaldata and the generation of new data. Agencies use ICR datato comply with statutes. For example, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) uses ICRs to fulfil its requirementsassociated with the residual risk and technology reviews ofthe U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments.

A quick search of www.regulations.gov indicates that EPA renewed or initiated close to 200 ICRs in the 12 month periodbeginning on July 1, 2015. Many of these were renewals,simply requesting the continued collection of data associatedwith previously approved ICRs; however, some ICRs imposed

substantial requirements on industry. For example, the recentICRs targeting Coke Ovens and Ethylene Production Facilitieswill easily cost targeted facilities several hundred thousanddollars to satisfy. And perhaps more important than the near-term costs associated with completing the ICR, are the long-termand ongoing costs associated with regulations that may bepromulgated based on ICR results.

Five Keys to a Successful ICRClearly, responding to an ICR is an important undertaking foran organization that should be approached in terms of projectmanagement best practices. Although responding to an ICRcan involve several hundred individual tasks and span severalmonths, five areas require particular attention to ensure thatrequested information satisfies its intended purpose, is respon-sive, qualified, technically sound, and reported accurately:

1. Participate in Stakeholder Meetings that Shape the ICR.EPA typically seeks involvement of the affected communitywhen developing ICRs. Often, key trade organizations andindustry groups are invited to participate in the development

Managing an InformationCollection Request Project

PM File by David L. Elam, Jr.


of the ICR. It is important to use this opportunity to understandEPA’s goals in conducting the ICR, the schedule for the ICRprogram, and how ICR data will be used. Trade organizationsand industry groups have the relevant process and operationalknowledge critical to guiding the development of a practicaland realistic ICR that yields the required data.

2. Assemble the ICR Response Team. It is likely that the ICRresponse will require efforts from environmental, operational,and information technology staff. The legal department mayneed to be involved to ensure the protection of confidentialinformation. Contractors and consultants may be required tosupport the ICR with site preparation, data collection, dataanalysis, reduction, and interpretation. Engage these teammembers early and rely on their expertise to support the ICR response through the entire process.

3. Provide Feedback on Draft ICRs. It is important to reviewand understand draft ICRs and comment on them in the required timeframe. While it is easy to focus on the cost ofresponding to the ICR when seeking changes, the most persuasive arguments for modifying an ICR are found in theareas of safety, technical feasibility, and data defensibility. Whenchallenging a draft ICR in any of these areas, it is importantto be clear about the specific issue, the limitations of the pro-posed approach, and provide an alternate approach to satisfyingthe data need. For example, if it is unsafe to conduct a particularsampling operation, provide a defensible engineering calculationor alternative sampling approach that satisfies the data need.Similarly, if a measurement yields a detection limit that will notguide a meaningful risk assessment, explain the sampling,analytical, or process operation issues that affect the detectionlimit and how that detection limit will drive interpretation anduse of ICR data.

4. Perform the ICR Work. Once the ICR is issued, managethe effort as a project relying on a project manager for coor-dinating and tracking the various tasks. Although an ICR maybe issued with incremental submittal requirements, it is likelythat the ICR will require simultaneous work on multiple tasksinstead of independent work on sequential tasks to meet thesubmittal schedule. Responding to a complex ICR will requirethe efforts of an overall project manager and a team of taskmanagers. And the ICR response won’t be their only job—team members will be satisfying ongoing operational respon-sibilities in addition to supporting the ICR.

5. Report ICR Data on Time and in the Required Format.Reported ICR data are going to be used by EPA to evaluatethe effectiveness of existing regulations and determine theneed for new ones. It is therefore important that ICR data becollected in time to allow adequate review of the informationbefore it is submitted. Although conformance with the ICRrequirements is important, it is also important to evaluate thecollected data from a broader perspective, considering dataquality, completeness, and representativeness. ICRs may require electronic reporting, which can be challenging tolearn. Accordingly, it is important to allow enough time forboth the reporting of electronic information and the reviewof electronically reported information.

SummaryIf a facility is subject to a regulatory requirement and it hasn’tbeen issued an ICR, it can expect to be in the future. ICRsare not casual requests for which a response is optional. Theresults of ICRs will be used to shape future regulations forthe industry and it is important that ICR recipients approachICRs as projects, managing the effort from stakeholder engagement through data submittal. em

In Next Month’s Issue…

Air Quality ModelingAn in-depth look at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed “Appendix W” air quality modeling changes.

Also look for…IT InsightCall for Abstracts for the 2017 A&WMA Annual Conference & Exhibition

David L. Elam, Jr., CIH, CMQ/OE, PMP, is a consultant with TRC. E-mail: [email protected].

IPEP Quarterly by Diana Kobus, IPEP Executive Director


Over the summer, The Institute of Professional Environmen-tal Practice (IPEP) settled into our new space at the offices ofthe American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) in Lansing,MI, and we are enjoying the gained efficiencies and economyof scale in operations and management. We are very gratefulto Duquesne University and the Bayer School’s Natural andEnvironmental Sciences Center for Environmental Research andEducation (BSNES-CERE) in Pittsburgh, PA, for the support wereceived in our tenure there, and we will continue workingwith CERE to offer the EPI exam to graduates of the program.

We are striving to offer more reliable, timely service to ourmembers, while continuing to grow our numbers of EPIs andQEPs and increasing our outreach. Through our cooperativeefforts, both boards look forward to expanding professional andpublic knowledge of the vital role of Qualified EnvironmentalProfessionals (QEPs) and Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs)in making the workplace and the greater environmenthealthier and safer spaces.

Our applications will continue to be accepted and exams willcontinue to be scheduled all year long on a rolling basis, andall forms and information are available on our website, includinga detailed outline of the Body of Knowledge for each IPEPexam. Members can also continue to pay annual dues throughour online member portal. If you are thinking about applyingor are a QEP or EPI member with questions or concerns,please be sure to note our updated contact information:

IPEP6015 West St. Joseph Street, Ste. 102Lansing, MI 48917Web: www.ipep.orgE-mail: [email protected]: 1-517-853-5761Fax: 1-517-321-4624

New Location Offers New Opportunities

Accredited by www.cesb.orgwww.ipep.org

In Memoriam


A long-time and active member of the Asso-ciation since 1957, Morton Sterling, P.E., servedas President of the then–named Air PollutionControl Association from 1963 to 1964. A Fellow Member, he was also awarded HonoraryMembership of the Association in 1987. In 1977,he received the S. Smith Griswold Outstanding

Air Pollution Control Official Award for outstanding accomplishmentsin the prevention and control of air pollution.

Over his 40-plus-year career, Sterling held positions with both industryand government, and served as a non-resident lecturer at the Universityof Michigan’s School of Public Health and in the Department of In-dustrial Medicine at Wayne State University. A World War II veteranand university graduate, Sterling began his career in 1951 as an applications engineer with Morse Bulger Destructor Company. From1956 to 1957, he worked as a combustion research engineer at theFord Motor Company’s Scientific Laboratory. In 1957, he became director of the Division of Air Pollution Control for the City of Detroit.From 1965 to 1968, he served as director of the Wayne County AirPollution Control Section. Then in 1968, he became director of theAir Pollution Control Division of the Wayne County Health Department,where he remained until 1980, when he became director of the Environmental protection Organization at Detroit Edison Company.

Sterling was a graduate of the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in advanced thermodynamics and power generation, was a licensedProfessional Engineer in the states of Michigan, Ohio, and New York,and was a member of the Tau Beta Pi and Pi Tau Sigma nationalhonorary fraternities.

Fondly remembered by many within the Association, A&WMAmember Frank Partee recalls:

“I knew Mort for over 40 years and worked with him intimately whileI was at Ford Motor’s Environmental Quality Office. He was a man ofunquestionable honesty and fairness, and technical competence. Hehad the ability to compartmentalize official business and friendshipand earned the respect of industry and activists. I had the privilege ofworking with him on two APCA national conferences in Detroit, andconsidered him a friend. He was also a good family man and he andhis wife, Jane, successfully raised their children and enjoyed twofurther generations of progeny.”

Sterling leaves wife Elsie Jane Sterling of 67 years and sons Mark,Raymond, and Scott, and their families. em

Past President

Morton Sterling(1926–2016)

IT3

HWC

For all the talk about carbon pricing, it is not a stake intothe heart of climate change. Carbon pricing may not even reduce carbon emissions. What matters, according to themost recent report from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, isstringent carbon pricing.

Stringency is a measure of the ability of a carbon pricing policy to reduce carbon emissions. Understanding the strin-gency of a policy is important because Canada appears to be on a path to multiple provincial carbon pricing schemes,likely at different price points. Much of the debate so far hasbeen about the consistency of the price across Canada.

However, if provinces are adopting different pricing modelsand crafting unique carbon policies, the marginal price ofcarbon will not necessarily be a good indicator of consistencyacross Canada. Equivalent stringency will also be important,says Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission.

The challenge, however, is that there is no agreed-upon metric for stringency. The report, Comparing Stringency ofCarbon Pricing Policies, selects five metrics and uses them tocompare the policies in the four provinces with current or imminently forthcoming carbon pricing policies: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec.

Not surprisingly, the four provinces are all over the map depending on the metric chosen. However, if the objective is to coordinate pricing policies across all jurisdictions, the report’s authors suggest that a metric known as the trade-adjusted carbon price is probably best because it takes intoaccount carbon price, the extent to which it covers the economy and the impact of emissions trading.

The report is available online at http://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Ecofiscal-Commission-Comparing-Stringency-Carbon-Pricing-Report-July-2016.pdf.—by Mark Sabourin,EcoLog.com

Ecofiscal Commission: It’s Not Just About the Carbon Price

Report: Environmental Cancer Risk Is Present Indoors and Out

Cancer Care Ontario and Public Health Ontario report thatbetween 3,540 and 6,510 new cancer cases in Ontario eachyear are the result of exposure to environmental factors, withnaturally-occurring causes such as sunlight and radon gas atthe top of the list.

The report examined the impact of 23 environmental car-cinogens and found that, of cancers caused by environmentalfactors, 90% are attributable to ultraviolet (UV) radiation,

radon gas, and fine particulates (PM2.5). Cancer risks fromenvironmental factors are approximately twice those causedby alcohol consumption, and half those attributable to smoking.

The report, Environmental Burden of Cancer in Ontario, isavailable online at https://www.cancercare. on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=362767. —by Mark Sabourin,EcoLog.com

Canadian Report


British Columbia (BC) has announced that it has achievedcarbon neutrality across its provincial public sector for thesixth consecutive year. The province is the only carbon-neutral jurisdiction on the continent.

The bulk of carbon neutrality was accomplished through the purchase of offsets. For 2015, BC reports that it offset624,585 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, the majority ofwhich were through two forest conservation and managementinitiatives in the province’s Great Bear Rainforest. Together,they accounted for 349,644 tons of offsets, or 56% of thetotal, according to BC figures. Though BC offsets are verified,

offsets from forest conservation can be challenged for failingto meet certain tests, including additionality (whether the forest would have been protected otherwise) and leakage(whether other forests are being harvested in place of theprotected area).

The report, Carbon Neutral Government: Year in Review2015, is available online at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/reports-and-data/cng/cng-yir-2015-final5.pdf.—by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

Yukon Postpones Expanded Recycling Program

Yukon is yielding to a plea from the Whitehorse Chamberof Commerce and postponing the expansion of its recyclingprogram to give business more time to adapt to the changes.

The changes were intended to simplify the beverage containerprogram and made several categories of consumer goodssubject to point-of-purchase environmental fees. The territorydid consult with stakeholders prior to drafting the regulation,but did not consult with business on the final draft. The changesare now scheduled to take effect August 1, 2017.

The changes to the beverage container program will extendits application to all ready-to-serve beverage products, includingmilk and milk substitutes. The program will be simplified toonly two categories of containers: those under 750 ml willcarry a 10 cent deposit, 5 cents of which will be refundable;and larger containers will carry a 35 cent deposit, 25 cents ofwhich will be refundable. —by Mark Sabourin, EcoLog.com

Canadian Report is compiled with excerpts from EcoLog News and the EcoCompliance.ca newsletter, both published by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a division of STP Publications LP. For more Canadian environmental information, visit www.ecolog.com.

Canadian Report


BC Government Remains Carbon Neutral


2016 Calendar of Events

Events sponsored and cosponsored by the Air & Waste Management Association(A&WMA) are highlighted in bold. For more information, call A&WMA Member Services at 1-800-270-3444 or visit the A&WMA Events Website.To add your events to this calendar, send to: Calendar Listings, Air & WasteManagement Association, One Gateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort DuquesneBlvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. Calendar listings are published on a space-available basis and should be received by A&WMA’s editorial offices at leastthree months in advance of publication.

SEPTEMBER20–23 A&WMA Southern Section Annual Meeting &Technical ConferenceBiloxi, MS

27–30 Atmospheric Optics: Aerosols, Visibility, and theRadiative BalanceJackson Hole, WY

OCTOBER4–6 35th Annual International Conference on ThermalTreatment Technologies & Hazardous Waste Combustors(IT3/HWC)Baton Rouge, LA

5–7 A&WMA Pacific Northwest Section 56th International ConferenceJuneau, AK

19 A&WMA West Coast Section Annual MeetingDiamond Bar, CA

25–26 A&WMA Ontario Section Air and Acoustic Monitoring ConferenceWaterloo, Ontario

26–27 A&WMA Louisiana Section Environmental Focus2016: A Multi-Media ForumBaton Rouge, LA

26–27 A&WMA Florida Section 52nd Annual ConferenceTampa, FL

NOVEMBER2–4 New York State Recycling ConferenceCooperstown, NY

DECEMBER6–7 41st Annual A&WMA Information ExchangeDurham, NC

7–8 Vapor Intrusion, Remediation, and Site ClosureSan Diego, CA

JOURNALListed here are the papers appearing in the September2016 issue of EM’s sister publication, the Journal of the Air& Waste Management Association (JA&WMA).Visit our website for more information.

September 2016 • Volume 66 • Number 9

A Special Issue including a collection of papers presented at NOAA’s 7th International Workshop on Air Quality Forecasting Research (IWAQFR)

Technical PapersThe FireWork Air Quality Forecast System with Near-Real-TimeBiomass Burning Emissions: Recent Developments and Evaluationof Performance for the 2015 North American Wildfire Season

Observations and Impacts of Transported Canadian WildfireSmoke on Ozone and Aerosol Air Quality in the Maryland Region

Influence of Fossil-Fuel Power Plant Emissions on the SurfacePM2.5 in the Seoul Capital Area, South Korea

A Comparison of Correlation-Length Estimation Methods forthe Objective Analysis of Surface Pollutants at Environmentand Climate Change Canada

Human-Model Hybrid Korean Air Quality Forecasting System

Optimization of Electrospinning Parameters for PAN-MgONanofibers Applied in Air Filtration

Evaluation of Asbestos-Containing Products and ReleasedFibers in Home Appliances

Odor Composition Analysis and Odor Indicator Selection during Sewage Sludge Composting

Keep informed about the latest research and sign up for newcontent e-mail alerts.

To order your print copies of JA&WMA, visit us online.

BRIDGINGENVIRONMENT, ENERGY & HEALTH

A&WMA 110th Annual Conference & Exhibition

June 5-8, 2017Pittsburgh

PA

The connections that link environment, energy and healthare as historic and direct as the 446 bridges that crisscrossPittsburgh, the city with more bridges than anywhereelse in the country. The 2017 Air & Waste ManagementAssociation’s Annual Conference & Exhibition (ACE) willexamine how leaders in industry, government, academia,and non-governmental citizen groups work together toimprove community health and protect the environment.The Pittsburgh area is a great example of the amazingimprovements in environmental quality and health that canoccur when these groups are bridged together. Industryin this region has evolved to a diverse portfolio of energysuppliers, manufacturing plants, medical facilities andtechnology companies that are harnessing energy insustainable and innovative ways.

Come join us as we advance the science of air andwaste management and recognize the many bridges to environment, energy and health.

A&WMA's 110th AnnnualConference & Exhibition

JUNE 5-8, 2017David L. Lawrence Convention Center

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Bridging Environment, Energy & Health

SaveTheDate

Reach decision-making environmental professionals with EM Magazine

Distributed monthly to A&WMA’s general membership,

EM explores a range of issues affecting environmental

managers with timely, provocative articles and regular

columns written by leaders in the field. More than 75%

of members are involved in purchasing decisions, and

represent 45 countries and all 50 states. EM is a key

resource that keeps readers abreast of important

developments in the air and waste management industry.

Topics covered include regulatory changes; research;

new technologies; environment, health, and safety issues;

new products; professional development opportunities;

and more. EM covers a wide range of topics, including air

quality and air pollution control, pollution prevention,

climate change, hazardous waste, and remediation.

Ensure that your business receives maximum exposure among environmental professionals worldwide by reserving your space today. Opportunities are available for every budget and frequency package discounts are available.

For more information please contact Meredith Schwartz at (410) 584-1993 or [email protected].


A&WMA HeadquartersStephanie M. GlyptisExecutive DirectorAir & Waste Management AssociationOne Gateway Center, 3rd Floor420 Fort Duquesne Blvd.Pittsburgh, PA 15222-14351-412-232-3444; 412-232-3450 (fax)[email protected]

AdvertisingMeredith [email protected]

EditorialLisa BucherManaging [email protected]

Editorial Advisory CommitteeJohn D. Kinsman, ChairEdison Electric InstituteTerm Ends: 2019

John D. BachmannVision Air ConsultingTerm Ends: 2017

Robert BaslEHS Technology GroupTerm Ends: 2019

Leiran BitonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2019

Gary Bramble, P.E.AESTerm Ends: 2017

Prakash Doraiswamy, Ph.D.RTI InternationalTerm Ends: 2017

Ali FarnoudRamboll EnvironTerm Ends: 2017

Steven P. Frysinger, Ph.D.James Madison UniversityTerm Ends: 2018

Keith GaydoshAffinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2018

C. Arthur Gray, IIICP Kelco-HuberTerm Ends: 2019

Mingming LuUniversity of CincinnatiTerm Ends: 2019

Dan L. Mueller, P.E.Environmental Defense FundTerm Ends: 2017

Brian Noel, P.E.SABICTerm Ends: 2017

Blair NorrisAshland Inc.Term Ends: 2017

Teresa RaineERMTerm Ends: 2017

Anthony J. Sadar, CCMAllegheny County Health DepartmentTerm Ends: 2018

Golam SarwarU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2019

Anthony J. Schroeder, CCM, CMTrinity ConsultantsTerm Ends: 2019

Susan S.G. WiermanMid-Atlantic Regional Air Management AssociationTerm Ends: 2018

James J. Winebrake, Ph.D.Rochester Institute of TechnologyTerm Ends: 2018

Layout and Design: Clay Communications, 1.412.704.7897

EM, a publication of the Air & Waste Management Association, is published monthly with editorial and executive offices at OneGateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435, USA. ©2016 Air & Waste Management Asso-ciation (www.awma.org). All rights reserved. Materials may not be reproduced, redistributed, or translated in any form withoutprior written permission of the Editor. A&WMA assumes no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by contributorsto this publication. Views expressed in editorials are those of the author and do not necessarily represent an official position ofthe Association. A&WMA does not endorse any company, product, or service appearing in third-party advertising.

EM Magazine (Online) ISSN 2470-4741 » EM Magazine (Print) ISSN 1088-9981

Staff and Contributors

The Magazine for Environmental Managers

innovation - a&wma publications website

Documents