Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association60 em june 2008 awma.org

emEPA Denies Environmental Group’s Petition to Reconsider Final Rule on Ethanol PlantsThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced May 2 it has denied a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petition to recon-sider the definition of a major emitting facility in a 2007 Clean Air Act (CAA) final rule for ethanol production facilities (73 Fed. Regist. 24,174). The NRDC petition challenged the rule on several fronts, alleging EPA had failed to consider the environmental conse-quences of building new or expanding current ethanol facilities. It said also that the agency did not consider all environmental concerns nor conduct a proper rulemaking. However, EPA determined NRDC “failed to establish that any of its objections meet the crite-ria for reconsideration,” according to a March 27 letter from EPA Administra-tor Stephen Johnson.

Rule Sets Higher Emissions ThresholdEPA issued a final rule April 12, 2007, that increased the amount of pollu-tion many ethanol fuel production plants could emit before they must comply with CAA requirements to install pollution controls. The final rule changes the definition of major source in 40 C.F.R. Parts 51, 52, 70, and 71 to exclude ethanol produc-tion facilities. The rule raised the threshold for classifying the facilities as major air pollution sources from 100 tons of emissions per year to 250 tons per year.

Ethanol production plants that emit less than 250 tons per year would no longer have to comply with Preven-tion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements that necessitate install-ing modern pollution controls dur-ing plant modifications that increase emissions. PSD is similar to the New Source Review (NSR) program, but it applies in areas that are in attainment of EPA air quality standards for criteria air pollutants such as particulate mat-ter and ozone. NRDC filed a lawsuit against EPA shortly after the final rule was published (Natural Resources Defense Council vs. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 07-1257, filed 7/02/07).

EPA Defends Review ProcessEPA’s review of ethanol plant emis-sions, which led to the change in defi-nition, failed to meet the rulemaking standard laid out in Section 302(j) of the CAA, which stipulates any fixed source that emits 100 tons of pollut-ants is defined as a major emitting facility, according to the petition. That definition could not be changed with-out an express 302(j) rulemaking, the petition said. In his letter to NRDC, Johnson contends the 302(j) rule-making was unnecessary because the EPA rule merely redefined one item on the list of emissions sources rather than modifying the list itself. Further, Johnson said the agency’s proposed rule was sufficient notice for the 302(j) process as well.

According to the NRDC petition, in its rulemaking EPA assumed mak-ing plants more economically effi-cient would lead to greater emissions reductions. The petition also faulted EPA’s decision only to forecast emis-sions for the next five years despite a prediction that the growing ethanol market will lead to construction of new processing facilities beyond the five-year time frame studied. EPA contends it acknowledged the rule would increase emissions because some sources would no longer be required to track fugitive emissions. The agency also said it considered public comments and “drew conclu-sions from a more in-depth evaluation of the environmental effects,” when issuing the final rule.

Some commenters had raised concerns about local environmental impacts from the new EPA standard during the review process, and NRDC said EPA’s response suggested “members of impacted communities should cross their fingers and hope that state and/or local regulators intervene to limit the damage that will result from the rule,” according to the petition.

NRDC’s petition to reconsider the definition of major emitting facility for ethanol production facilities and EPA’s response are available online at www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp by searching for docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089.—by Andrew Childers, BNA

EPA Officials Expect Shift in Redevelopment Activities to Superfund SitesDespite a perceived stigma attached to Superfund sites, the desirable location of many sites near transportation hubs and population centers is enticing many developers to overcome their fears of contamination and liability, an EPA official said May 5. EPA’s brown-fields office has seen robust activity and interest in redevelopment, but the agency’s Superfund office represents the next wave of activity, said Melissa Friedland, national program manager for Superfund redevelopment within EPA’s Office of Superfund Remedia-tion and Technology Innovation.

Friedland and other agency officials addressed key questions prospective purchasers may have about Superfund sites at Brownfields 2008, a national brownfields conference sponsored by EPA and the International City/County Management Association. In addition to the advantageous locations of many Superfund sites, Friedland said prospective purchasers should consider that grants, loans, and tax incentives to encourage revitalization can be obtained even though such sites are not eligible for grant funding under the 2002 brownfields amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Sites have been transformed into major shopping centers, business parks, residential subdivisions, and recreation-al facilities, and many more are being revitalized for use by small businesses, Friedland said. She pointed out that some developers may not realize that a large number of sites are suitable for revitalization, even while cleanup on the property progresses.

William Denman, remedial project manager with EPA’s Region 4, said, in some cases, Superfund sites, or just por-tions of sites, are safe enough that site revitalization can occur in conjunction with the cleanup.

EPA Offers ‘Tools’ to Encourage ReuseEPA has developed several tools to encourage Superfund site reuse, such as comfort or status letters, ready-for- reuse determinations, and performance

news focus

Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Associationawma.org june 2008 em 61

to consider reusing that portion, he said. Denman said the majority of Superfund sites are protective of human health and the environment for certain types of reuse after they are cleaned up, and cleanups may be designed to accommodate specific future uses. For example, a property might be cleaned up to accommodate industrial or commercial use, but not residential use. For this reason, he said, many sites have restrictions limiting future use.

Prospective Purchasers AddressedKaren Singer, associate counsel for EPA’s Region 4, said the 2002 brown-fields amendments to the Superfund law sought to address many purchaser liability concerns. In most cases, “bonafide prospective purchasers” acquiring a Superfund site or other contaminated property who comply with certain requirements will not incur federal liability, she said. How-ever, she noted, the property itself could be subject to a lien as a result of EPA incurring costs to clean up the

measures that indicate which sites or portions of them are ready for their anticipated uses, Denman said. A comfort or status letter is intended to combat the stigma and concerns about cleanup liability at contaminated sites by clarifying the cleanup status and likelihood of EPA involvement at a site. A ready-for-reuse determination is an environmental status report docu-menting that EPA has made a technical determination, after consulting with states, tribes, and local governments, that all or a portion of the property at a superfund can support specified types of uses and remain protective of human health and the environment.

Some regional offices have devel-oped prospective purchaser inquiry procedures and arrange conference calls or meetings with prospective purchasers to discuss whether the pro-posed site use is compatible with an ongoing cleanup, or current or future restrictions on how a site can be uses, according to Denman. Partial deletion of a site from EPA’s National Priorities List is another tool to enable developers

site. To obtain this protection from liability, such purchasers must per-form “all appropriate inquiries” into environmental conditions at the site as outlined in an EPA final rule that became effective Nov. 1, 2006.

To ensure the bona fide prospec-tive purchaser liability protection is maintained, EPA officials said they must ensure property-use restrictions are implemented and followed and that the purchaser’s use of the site does not adversely affect its cleanup. EPA officials recommended that prospective purchasers contact the EPA regional office prior to purchase of a Superfund site to discuss the cleanup status and property restrictions. They also urged prospective purchasers to contact the state environmental protection agency to discuss liability and other cleanup issues.—by Linda Roeder, BNA

News Focus is compiled from the current edition of Environment Reporter, pub-lished by the Bureau of National Affairs Inc. (BNA). For more information, visit www.bna.com.

A&WMAmember get amember campaign

A Century of Experience . . .To Solve Today's Challenges

When you recruit a new member, everyone’s a winner.

Help us share the many benefits ofA&WMA membershipby inviting your peers to join us during our new MemberGet a Member campaign! Members who recruit newmembers will be rewarded with great prizes.

Visit www.awma.org/go/membergetamember08 formembership applications and more details on the program.Start recruiting today!

AWMArecruitad:Layout 2 4/10/08 11:35 AM Page 1

Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association62 em june 2008 awma.org

In February, your A&WMA head-quarters offices moved. If you didn’t notice, it probably has something to do with the fact that we moved right next door—to the two open wings on the same floor of the building we’ve called home for the past 14 years. So our mailing address didn’t change at all.

But the move did allow us to change some things—for the bet-ter, we think. In addition to a more streamlined layout of offices and cubicles, we took the opportunity to introduce as many environmen-tally friendly features as we could to reduce our overall footprint. They include:

• Usedlow-VOCpaintsonallwalls.

• Installedcarpetingmadefrom25% recycled content.

• Installedenergy-efficientlight-ing controlled by motion sen-sors. If no one is in an office for more than a few minutes, the lights shut themselves off.

• Purchasedpre-owneddesksand cubicles, rather than buy-ing new, and recycled as much outdated furniture as possible.

• InstalledEnergyStar-rateddishwasher, refrigerator, and microwave in the office kitchen.

• Purchasedplates,glasses,

emassoc iat ion news

A&WMA Headquarters Gets the Green Treatment

Business Briefs

Tellurian Biodiesel, Los Angeles, CA, an independent distributor of biodiesel, has entered into a joint venture with quick-service res-taurant industry supplier Golden State Foods, Irvine, CA, to recycle used cooking oil into biodiesel that exceeds industry specifications. The new venture, Encore BioRenew-ables, plans to launch its first biod-iesel production facility in Southern California in early 2009. In addition to used cooking oil, Encore BioRenew-ables will convert other recyclable domestic fats and oils into biodiesel. The company projects production of at least 100 million gallons annu-ally, once its national network is fully operational.

The Air Force Center for Engineer-ing and the Environment (AFCEE), Brooks City-Base, TX, has awarded BEM Systems Inc., Chatham, NJ, an eight-year architectural and engineering services contract to support AFCEE and Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency cus-tomers worldwide. The initial capac-ity for the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract is US$3 billion. The scope of the contract includes Title I, Title II, and other architectural and engineering services to administer, coordinate, and technically support various environmental, restoration, and maintenance programs.

Met One Instruments Inc., Grants Pass, OR, has become the first instrument manufacturer ever to successfully be awarded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Class III equivalency designa-tion for a continuous fine particulate (PM2.5) monitor. The BAM-1020 beta attenuation mass monitor has been assigned EPA designation EQPM-0308-170, notice of which was published in the U.S. Federal Register on March 12, 2008. em

silverware to eliminate use of disposable products.

• Beganparticipatinginapilotmixed waste recycling program in the building.

• Installedenvironmentallyfriendly printers coupled with a printing pipeline that signifi-cantly reduces waste.

Also worth noting are the two Kon-ica Minolta printer-copiers that we began leasing last year (at significant cost savings). In addition to surpass-ing the newest Energy Star ratings by 50%, these machines have allowed us to significantly reduce paper usage by eliminating the need for a fax machine (faxes are now received electronically) and when printing is necessary, our default print setting is double-sided.

Although they are small steps, A&WMA headquarters staff is proud of these efforts to reduce our overall impact on the environment. Approxi-mately half of our 24-person staff regularly commutes to work using public transportation or ridesharing. We are encouraging more staff to take advantage of public transportation, and we are continuously seeking new and greener ways of carrying out the business of A&WMA. Next time you’re in Pittsburgh, please drop by to see us in our new, more environmentally friendly office space. em

emnews focus

Receptionist Mary Korzen at work in her new office space.