the magazine for environmental managerspubs.awma.org/gsearch/em/2008/10/not needed/_full...

emAir & Waste Management Association October 2008

awm

a.or

g

THE MAGAZINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS

DiggingDeeper

An In-Depth Look at Geologic Carbon Sequestration

Survey Says: Results from an Inter-Industry Survey of Corporate Sustainability Practices, p. 21

IT Insight: Nightmare on Elm Street, p. 26

Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association

With environmental concerns growing around the world, it’s vital that professionals clearly understand howpollutant emissions affect our air.

The Practical Guide to Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling, a new comprehensive text, seamlessly covers the use ofair dispersion modeling to assess the impact of emissions to the atmosphere. Written by world-renowned expertsin the field of dispersion modeling D. Bruce Turner, CCM, and author of more than 60 publications, and pastpresident of A&WMA and founder of Trinity Consultants Richard H. Schulze, P.E., QEP, the Practical Guideprovides applicable insight on:

• plume behavior under various atmospheric conditions• conditions that promote the highest concentrations of air pollutants• using meteorological data• refined techniques related to complex terrain• algorithms used in popular computer models• assessment of human health exposures from chronic and acute release events

An essential reference text for environmental professionals, the PracticalGuide to Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling includes detailed illustrations andexamples, as well as review questions at the end of each chapter.

Order Now! Order Number OTHP-27Member Price: $75Nonmember Price: $85Shipping costs not included

To place your order or to view a complete selection of environmentaltext books available through A&WMA, visit the online library athttp://secure.awma.org/OnlineLibrary.

To order by phone, call the A&WMA Publications Order Department at1-412-232-3444, ext. 6001.

A Model Resource for Air Quality Professionals

A&WMA and Trinity Consultants Announce thePractical Guide to Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling

A&WMA'S 102ND

ANNUALCONFERENCE& EXHIBITION

JUNE 16-19, 2009DETROIT, MICHIGAN

CONFERENCE SPONSOR Make plans now to join us in Detroit for the Air & Waste Management

Association’s 102nd Annual Conference & Exhibition (ACE).

Don’t miss your chance to network with environmental professionals from around the world

at ACE 2009. The conference will feature a technical program boasting over 500 speakers,

social tours and networking events, and professional development courses taught by leading

instructors.

One of the most exciting parts of every Annual Conference & Exhibition is the bustling

exhibit hall filled with hundreds of exhibitors displaying the newest products and

services. From instrumentation and testing services to control equipment and leading

industry publications, our exhibitors have the environmental industry covered. Visit

www.awma.org/ACE2009/exhibitors to download the exhibitor prospectus, view the

exhibit hall floor plan, and to find out more about exhibiting at ACE.

ACE is the premier education, networking, and solutions event for environmental professionals.

Join us and be a part of a global conversation that will drive environmental progress.

2 em october 2008 awma.orgCopyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association

Digging Deeper: What Is Carbon Sequestration?by Dan Mueller

Carbon sequestration, the capture and storage of carbondioxide (CO2) using subsurface saline aquifers, reservoirs,ocean water, or other underground sinks, has been proposedas a way to help mitigate the accumulation of greenhousegases in the atmosphere. This month, EM looks at the pro-posed federal regulations for geologic sequestration projects,state-based initiatives to regulate carbon sequestration, andsome of the requirements for developing a deep brine CO2sequestration project.Page 5

EPA’s Proposed Underground Injection Control Regulationsby Russ Baier, independent environmental consultantPage 6

State-Based Developments in Regulating CO2 Sequestrationby Ian Duncan and J.P. Nicot, Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas, Austin; and Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense FundPage 12

Requirements for Developing a Deep BrineCarbon Sequestration Projectby Ian Duncan, Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas, AustinPage 16

COLUMNSIT Insight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Nightmare on Elm Streetby Jill Gilbert

ASSOCIATION NEWSA roundup of the student awards and scholarships presented at A&WMA’s 101st Annual Conference & Exhibition in Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

The Member Minute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Bill Reamy

DEPARTMENTSMessage from the President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4EPA Research Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Washington Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Advertisers’ Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Canadian Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31News Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Professional Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47JA&WMA Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

EM, a publication of the Air & Waste Management Association (ISSN 1088-9981), is published monthly with editorial and executive offices at One GatewayCenter, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. ©2008 Air & Waste Management Association. All rights reserved. Materials maynot be reproduced, redistributed, or translated in any form without prior written permission of the Editor. Periodicals postage paid at Pittsburgh and atan additional mailing office. Postmaster: Send address changes to EM, Air & Waste Management Association, One Gateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 FortDuquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. GST registration number: 135238921. Subscription rates are $255/year for nonprofit libraries and nonprofitinstitutions and $385/year for all other institutions. Additional postage charges may apply. Please contact A&WMA Member Services for current rates(1-800-270-3444). Send change of address with recent address label (6 weeks advance notice) and claims for missing issues to the Membership Department. Claims for missing issues can be honored only up to three months for domestic addresses, six months for foreign addresses. Duplicatecopies will not be sent to replace ones undelivered through failure of the member/subscriber to notify A&WMA of change of address. A&WMA assumesno responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by contributors to this publication. Views expressed in editorials are those of the author and donot necessarily represent an official position of the Association.

Air & Waste Management Association October 2008

THE MAGAZINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERSPrinted on 100% recycled paper

Next Month:Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventoriesemaw

ma.

org

Call for Abstracts

for A&WMA’s 102nd Annual

Conference & Exhibition in Detroit

page 38

A Benchmark Study of CurrentPractices and Tools for Sustainabilityby Christina Schwerdtfeger and Joanne Schroeder,Environmental Data Solutions GroupThe results and conclusions drawn from a recentonline, inter-industry survey of companies abouttheir tools and drivers for managing sustainabilitydata.Page 21

DiggingDeeper

An In-Depth Look at Geologic Carbon Sequestration

Integrated Waste Management SystemsGeared toward solid waste management practitioners in municipal consulting firms, industry, and academics,Integrated Waste Management Systems will examine issues concerning municipal waste and wastemanagement systems.

This conference will bring together national and international speakers who have hands-on experience with thedesign and operation of integrated waste management systems and will be divided into four sessions that include:

• An overview of successful waste management systems • Costs• New and emerging technologies • Decision processes

November 12-14Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Air Quality Modeling – The BasicsWhat is an air quality model? How do you determine which model you need and how to use it for predicting andmanaging air resources? If you're looking for answers to these and other fundamental questions about one of thekey tools in the environmental professional's toolbelt, look no further. A&WMA's Webinar, "Air Quality Modeling—The Basics," will teach you all you need to know about air quality models, including air quality model types, uses,and availability.

Join Tom Grosch, Manager of Software and Data Services, Trinity Consultants, Inc. for this informative Webinar.November 182-4 p.m. Eastern • Webinar

Vapor Intrusion ConferenceVapor intrusion is an indoor air quality issue that can have significant impacts on virtually all types of buildings:homes, offices, commercial developments, and government properties. Get a handle on this growing problem byattending Vapor Intrusion 2009, A&WMA’s informative conference that brings together internationally-recognizedscientists, engineers, regulators, and attorneys.

This conference will showcase the latest developments and innovations in vapor intrusion, including:

• Regulatory Developments • Sampling & Analysis• Case Studies • Modeling

January 27-30, 2009San Diego, CA

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

OPPORTUNITIESVisit www.awma.org/events for more information.

November 12-14Galveston, TX

Hazardous Waste CombustorsConference & ExhibitionBy October 14, 2008, all sources are required to be in compliance with all emission standards and operatingrequirements of the HWC MACT standards. Don’t miss this timely opportunity to meet with top industry representatives,consultants, and regulators to discuss compliance with these standards, and all regulatory issues related to hazardouswaste combustion. Technical information about regulatory updates and implementation approaches, emissionstesting, public communications, and risk assessment will be covered through paper and panel discussions.

Exhibit space available.

November 3-6Chapel Hill, NC

Symposium on Air Quality MeasurementMethods and TechnologyJoin a full range of investigators from academia, industry, consulting firms, and government agencies for theleading conference on air quality measurements.

The Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology will provide a forum for discussion ofcurrent advances in measurements technology, and will cover all aspects of air quality, including ambient air,indoor air, point sources, and area sources. Both laboratory and field studies will be addressed.

Exhibit space available.

4 em october 2008 awma.org

The deterioration of air quality in many of the world’s mega-cities, including Beijing, New Delhi,and Mexico City, is of increasing concern to environmental professionals across the globe. Thisissue came under an intense media spotlight in the lead up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing,when journalists from around the world spent considerable time focusing on air pollution and itspotential impacts on the visiting athletes. One hopes that the measures taken by the Chinese to reduce pollutant emissions in and around Beijing during the Olympics are made permanent, sincethis is not only a regional issue, but also a global one.

In past messages, I have touched on the importance of addressing long-range transport of pollution and advocated A&WMA’s partnering with environmental professionals around theworld—and especially in newly industrialized countries—to help find solutions to this problem. Iwas extremely pleased to see the large number of attendees from all over Asia, the Middle East,and Central/South America at A&WMA’s 2008 Annual Conference & Exhibition in Portland.A&WMA members have expertise they are willing to share and are committed to working with otherenvironmental professionals on issues of common concern.

As stated in the bylaws, one of A&WMA’s objectives is to “participate in activities designed to addressregional and global environmental management issues.” Charged with leading the Association’sefforts to make progress on that objective is the Board-initiated International Affairs Committee(IAC). Until recently, IAC’s activities focused primarily on improving education and training coursesin newly industrialized countries. Earlier this year, however, the Board approved my recommendationto expand the committee’s scope, and in June approved IAC’s Strategic Framework for Action. Theframework calls for focused action in four areas

1. expanding international membership outside North America;2. enhancing technical outreach and assistance to developing countries;3. participating in collaborative training and capacity building activities; and4. promoting partnerships with targeted international organizations.

IAC is in the process of developing detailed action plans in each of the four areas.In the meantime, let me share a couple of examples of international partnerships that are

currently underway. As a founding member of the International Union of Air Pollution Preventionand Environmental Protection Associations (IUAPPA), A&WMA will host IUAPPA’s next WorldClean Air Congress in Vancouver, Canada, in 2010. Typically, 500–700 professionals from aroundthe world attend IUAPPA’s congress and hosting the 2010 meeting will provide us with an excellentopportunity to showcase A&WMA to the world.

A&WMA is also working with IUAPPA, in cooperation with the United Nations EnvironmentalProgram (UNEP) and others, on its new initiative to curb the long-range transport of pollutants.The focus of the initiative is to develop integrated strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissionsand traditional air pollutants. I see this as a wonderful opportunity for the Association to collaboratewith UNEP and other organizations to further promote A&WMA’s mission and objectives.

And next month, A&WMA is cosponsoring the 2008 Better Air Quality (BAQ) Workshop, hostedby Clean Air Initiative-Asia in Bangkok, Thailand, and I will have the honor of representing the Association. In conjunction with the workshop, I plan to visit A&WMA Sections and Chapters inSouth Korea, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Taiwan, and India to promote each of the four areas includedin the framework developed by IAC. Look for my report from that trip in EM early next year.

As always, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and comments on this or any other topic.E-mail: [email protected].

by C.V. Mathai, Ph.D., [email protected]

emwww.awma.org

ADVERTISINGEM Sales 1-412-232-3444 [email protected]

EDITORIAL Andy Knopes, CAEEditorLisa BucherManaging Editor

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEA. Gwen Eklund, ChairTRCAnn McIver, QEP, Vice ChairCitizens Energy GroupFerdinand B. AlidoNavistar Inc.John D. BachmannVision Air ConsultingJane C. BartonPatterson ConsultantsPrakash Doraiswamy, Ph.D.State University of New York at AlbanyJennifer B. Dunn, Ph.D.URS Corp.Steven P. Frysinger, Ph.D.James Madison UniversityJohn D. KinsmanEdison Electric InstituteAshok KumarUniversity of ToledoMiriam Lev-On, Ph.D.The LEVON GroupJulian A Levy, Jr.Exponent Inc.Mingming LuUniversity of CincinnatiCharles E. McDadeUniversity of California at DavisPaul J. MillerNortheast States for Coordinated Air

Use ManagementDan L. Mueller, P.E.CDM Inc.Chris Pepper Jackson WalkerS.T. RaoU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyDaniel R. WeissDuke Energy IndianaSusan S.G. WiermanMid-Atlantic Regional Air

Management Association

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEEJudith C. Chow, ChairDesert Research Institute

A&WMA HEADQUARTERSAdrianne Carolla, CAEExecutive Director

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

emm e s s a g e f r o m t h e p r e s i d e n t

*French and Spanish translations of the Message from the President are available online at www.awma.org/em.

A&WMA’s Global Outreach

Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association

underway to better understand the processes and ramifica-tions of this form of CO2 sequestration.

Engineered and controlled systems cover a wide rangeof CO2 sequestration alternatives, ranging from possibleuses as chemical feed stock and the manufacturing ofbiodegradable plastics to the production of biofuels usingcontrolled biological process. Pilot- and full-scale systemsare currently in operation that pump large amounts ofCO2 into bioreactors where colonies of algae or even bac-teria use the gas and a nutrient broth to produce ethanolor biodiesel and where the byproducts are put to benefi-cial use as animal feed, fertilizer, or potential bioplastics.

The articles in this month’s EM, however, focus on what isthe currently the most widely used method of CO2 seques-tration—geologic sequestration. Geologic CO2 sequestrationinvolves a number of methods and activities, including injection into depleted oil and gas reservoirs for enhancedoil and gas recovery, into deep saline formations, and forenhanced coal and bed methane recovery. Specifically, thearticles that follow consider the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency’s recent proposed regulations for CO2 se-questration (page 6); state-based regulations for CO2sequestration (page 12); and CO2 sequestration in depletedoil and natural gas projects (page 16).

There are certainly many more topics that encompassgeologic sequestration and the associated knowledge andtechnology is progressing. Issues ranging from infrastruc-ture needs for transporting CO2 to public concerns thatsequestration operations are properly monitored and con-trolled continue to be topics of discussion. But what is in-cluded in this issue of EM provides an excellent basis fordelving into the both the regulatory and real-time appli-cation of geologic CO2 sequestration. em

Dan L. Mueller, P.E.Client Service ManagerCamp Dresser & McKee Inc.Dallas, TX E-mail: [email protected]

Until recently, few laypersons were familiar with the term“carbon sequestration.” In the technical arena, certainly amore sizable group knew the term, as well as the ramifica-tions of climate change and greenhouse gas emissionslinked to the need to manage emissions of carbon diox-ide (CO2). Today, it’s likely that a majority of people, re-gardless of their background, have at least heard of carboncapture and management—in essence, CO2 sequestration.

CO2 sequestration falls into the following major cate-gories: geologic, terrestrial, ocean, and for lack of a betterterm, engineered and controlled systems.

A large amount of carbon is, by nature, stored in soilsand vegetation creating natural carbon sinks, or terrestrialcarbon sequestration systems, including forested lands andlands used for agricultural and grazing purposes. The U.S.Department of Energy estimates that the global biosphereabsorbs roughly 2 billion tons of carbon annually.

CO2 sequestration in the oceans, either by direct injectionor by fertilization, is an alternative form of carbon seques-tration currently under consideration and study. Directinjection involves piping CO2 to the desired location and

depth. From the standpoint of fertilization, biological activity (specifically photosynthesis) could be manually enhanced, thus increasing CO2 fixation. Certainly a wordof caution is warranted when artificial stimulations to natu-ral biological process are involved. However, studies are

f e a t u r e

DiggingDeeperWhat Is Carbon Sequestration?

october 2008 em 5awma.org Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association


As the drivers for global climate changebecome better understood by scientists,politicians, industry, and the public, thereis growing consensus that action shouldbe taken to limit atmospheric emissionsof carbon dioxide (CO2) and othergreenhouse gases (GHGs). Even as wind,solar, nuclear, biofuels, and other alterna-tive energy sources become increasinglyimportant, the United States will continueto rely upon fossil fuels for decades to cometo meet its energy needs and achieve energy independence from foreign oil.

Coal, which currently provides more than 50% of the nation’s domestic electricity,1 will remain an integral partof the U.S. energy portfolio even as the world transitionsaway from carbon-based fuels. Geologic CO2 sequestration,where CO2 emissions are captured, injected, and perma-nently stored in deep subsurface brine reservoirs, may allowcoal-fueled power plants to operate and expand to meetthose interim demands with minimal increases in GHGemissions. U.S. federal and state regulators are faced with thechallenge of developing a regulatory framework necessaryto support the development, verification, and implemen-tation of such technologies to control GHG emissions.

In the United States, the subsurface injection of fluidsis regulated under the authority of the U.S. Safe DrinkingWater Act through a series of underground injection control(UIC) regulations.2 These regulations protect undergroundsources of drinking water (USDWs), which are aquiferswith less than 10,000 milligrams per liter of total dissolvedsolids. There are currently five distinct classes of permitted

f e a t u r e

Russ Baier is an independent environmental consultant specializingin regulatory and policy research and analysis in Austin, TX. Most recently, he has been involved in the FutureGen Texas and Southeast Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) projects. E-mail: [email protected].

EPA’s Proposed Underground Injection Control Regulationsby Russ Baier

Source: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, September 2005 (www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm). Figure TS-7. Methods for storing CO2 in deep underground geological formations.

f e a t u r e

awma.org october 2008 em 7Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association

These EOR wells are permitted as Class II UIC wells withstrict requirements to protect USDWs. The geologic mech-anisms that trap the CO2 within these formations are wellunderstood and EOR operations have successfully demon-strated that CO2 can be safely and effectively injected underground. This experience has provided valuable dataon the construction materials, drilling techniques, opera-tional methods, monitoring, and other requirements forcarbon sequestration and formed part of the basis for theproposed rule. Ongoing studies are underway at EOR operations that continue to enhance understanding of thesafety and reliability of geologic CO2 sequestration.

While current EOR projects in the United States useCO2 from naturally-occurring deposits, the use of CO2from anthropogenic sources, such as coal-fired powerplants, is possible. But the process of capturing, trans-porting, and injecting CO2 is not inexpensive and hasbeen estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)at US$100–300 per ton using current technologies.5

Approximately three-quarters of the cost are related to theadditional energy required to capture and separate theCO2 at the plant. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that a power plantusing carbon capture and storage requires between 10%and 40% more energy than other power plants.6 However,the additional revenue generated from EOR operationscould partially or entirely offset the additional costs associated with CO2 sequestration. Furthermore, expandedEOR activity should also stimulate the development of apipeline infrastructure capable of supporting long-termsequestration efforts even after EOR operations are completed.

More recently, CO2 has been injected into permittedClass V experimental technology wells as part of ongoingresearch into geologic sequestration. The Bureau of Eco-nomic Geology’s Frio Pilot Injection Project (2004–2006)near Houston, TX, for example, was conducted under aClass V permit.4 This research focused on testing the ability of deep saline formations to physically and geo-chemically trap CO2 for long-term geologic sequestration.Class V permits generally require controls similar to Class I(nonhazardous) wells for the injection of highly controlledmaterials below USDWs.

UIC wells (Class I – V) used to authorize the injection ofindustrial wastewater, hazardous waste, oil and gas fieldfluids, solution mining fluids, and other materials for a variety of purposes. Each class of well has varying types ofcontrol requirements and permit conditions to ensure theprotection of USDWs. However, the existing UIC regula-tions are not well suited to address the unique challengesassociated with the high-volume injection and long-termstorage of CO2 for geologic sequestration. Consequently,on July 25, 2008, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) published a proposed rule to create a newclassification of injection well—Class VI. The proposedrule builds on the framework of the existing UIC regulationsand adds provisions to tailor specific technical criteria andprocedural requirements for the permitting, construction,operation, monitoring, and closure of injection wells toprotect USDWs (see Table 1).

This article summarizes EPA’s proposed requirementsfor permitting and regulating the new Class VI wells forgeologic sequestrations under the UIC program.3 Therulemaking process will allow stakeholders to continue toevaluate and comment on the reasonableness or necessityof various provisions and to suggest alternative approachesfor the implementation of this emerging technology. A public hearing was held by EPA in September, with comments on the proposed rule accepted through November 24, 2008.

Geologic CO2 SequestrationNatural geologic reservoirs in sedimentary basins aroundthe world have trapped CO2 for millions of years. CO2 istrapped in permeable reservoirs that are capped by oneor more overlying impermeable confining layers or seals.Typical seal lithologies are fine-grained mudstones orshales. By injecting CO2 into similar reservoirs, industrycan use the same geologic and geochemical processes topermanently trap the gas underground.

The injection of CO2 in deep geologic formation is nota new concept. The oil and gas industry has been injectingCO2 for enhanced oil recover (EOR) for more than 35 years,using it to force previously untapped oil from depletedproduction fields. Approximately 80% of the CO2 EOR inthe world has taken place in the Permian Basin of Texas.4

Table 1. UIC Class permits.

UIC Class Type of Well Description

Class I Industrial nonhazardous, municipal Below USDWs with varying levels of control depending upon wastewater or hazardous wastes substance(s) to be injected

Class II Fluids from oil and gas production Below USDWs and includes injection for EORor storage

Class III Solution mining Below USDWs

Class IV Hazardous or radioactive wastes Into or above USDWs—banned unless approved for groundwater remediation project

Class V All wells not included in other UIC classes Includes experimental technology wells used for pilot studies

Class VI (proposed) Geologic sequestration of CO2 Below USDWs with controls similar to Class I nonhazardous wells


The proposed rulemaking is limited to the protectionof USDWs and does not address potential air quality orecological impacts of CO2. However, with careful site selection, effective corrective action plans, and proper operational controls, more than 90% of CO2 emissionsfrom a power plant could be securely stored for 1000years.6 The chances of significant CO2 leakage to the surfacethat would threaten human health or the environment areremote. The only reasonable mechanism for CO2 to escapeback to surface and affect USDWs is through operationalerror (e.g., poor well abandonment, exceeding the fracturepressures or fracture gradients, or over pressuring of flow-lines). The proposed rule also does not address controlson the capture and transport of CO2 from sources coveredunder other state and/or federal programs. The incre-mental cost of implementing the rule is estimated by EPAto be US$15.0–15.6 million.

Issues for Special ConsiderationEPA has focused on several issues associated with the geo-logic sequestration of CO2 that it believes require specialconsideration and has developed specific provisions in theproposed regulatory approach to address each of them.

Buoyancy and Mobility of CO2CO2 is typically compressed and injected as a supercriticalfluid at depths greater than 800 m, where the pressure andtemperature is sufficient to keep it in a supercritical state.The receiving reservoirs are generally well below the lower-most USDWs and are separated by one or more confininglayers (or seals). While some of the CO2 will be trapped inpore spaces within the formation or precipitated as solid car-bonate minerals, a portion may buoyantly rise until reachinga confining layer. Many of the likely receiving reservoirs areat depths of greater than 3000 m and are separated from thenearest USDW by several hundred meters of impermeableformations. Care must be taken in siting, well construction,

Under its planned rule, EPA is proposing to allow Class I,Class II, and Class V wells to be “reclassified” as Class VIwells and to grandfather in construction requirements, ifthey can be demonstrated to protect USDWs. In preparingthe proposed rule, EPA (along with DOE) have fundedseveral major geologic sequestration research projectsthrough the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, thePacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, and havemonitored research by organizations, academic institutions,and international commercial operations. In addition,EPA has conducted technical workshops in conjunctionwith the Ground Water Protection Council, the InterstateOil and Gas Compact Commission, the International Energy Association (IEA), the Regional Carbon Seques-tration Partnerships, and U.S. state regulators, and hasconvened two public stakeholder meetings representinggovernment, industry, and public interest groups.

EPA’s Approach: Learn As You GoEPA has chosen what the agency terms as a “tailored requirements approach” for Class VI UIC permitting,which incorporates the basic UIC program componentsand adds additional safeguards to address the specific con-cerns and challenges of high-volume injection and long-term storage related to geologic CO2 sequestration. 3 Inintroducing the proposed rule, EPA emphasized that thephilosophical approach is based on “adaptive manage-ment.” This approach is intended to provide flexibility forthe permitting authorities to address site-specific character-istics, while retaining national consistency in the carbon sequestration permitting process. There is also a convictionthat regulations must be able to adapt to the evolving stateof knowledge coming from ongoing CO2 injection pilotprojects and early entry commercial sequestration proj-ects, both in the United States and around the world. This approach is often referred to as “learn as you go.”

Source: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, September 2005 (www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm). Figure TS-1. Schematic diagram of possible carbon storage systems.


and determining the appropriate “area of review” (AoR) toensure that potential pathways of leakage into the USDWsare identified and corrected or avoided.

Site Evaluations. The target formations with the highestpotential for geologic sequestration (i.e., up to 88.6% ofthe CO2 injection capacity) are deep saline aquifers. Researchers at the Bureau of Economic Geology at theUniversity of Texas at Austin inventoried at least 21 geologicformations in the onshore United States that might serveas host injection reservoirs for CO2 and that are locatednear numerous and large anthropogenic CO2 sources.7

Other candidate formations include depleted oil and gasreservoirs, unmineable coal seams, as well as other basaltand shale formations. Detailed maps and cross sections ofthe injection zone, confining layer(s), and USDWs, as wellas geologic and geochemical data demonstrating the lateralextent and thickness, strength, capacity, porosity, and per-meability of all subsurface formations will be required.Many of these areas have been extensively characterizedas a result of oil and gas exploration activities. The size ofthe injection zone and the associated confining layer mustbe sufficient to contain the entire CO2 plume and associ-ated pressure front throughout the injection, stabilization,and closure stages of a given project.

AoR Delineation. UIC regulations require owners/opera-tors of injection wells to determine an AoR around thewell(s) based on the expected maximum size of the injectionplume. Unlike other classes of UIC wells that can havefixed AoRs (e.g., 0.25 mile for nonhazardous wells and 2 miles for hazardous waste injection wells), the AoR ClassVI wells will not be fixed and are expected to be muchlarger, potentially up to many square miles.

Corrective Actions within AoR. Owners/operators of injection wells will be required to identify all penetrationsinto the confining or injections zones within the AoR, toverify that they have been properly completed or plugged,and to perform corrective action where necessary to preventfluid movement into USDWs. A plan must be submittedwith the permit application to describe how and whenreevaluations of the AoR will be conducted, how supple-mental corrective actions will be performed, and how thepublic will be informed of the changes.

Well Construction and Monitoring. Enhancements to thedeep well design and construction procedures similar tothose for Class I wells will be required to ensure that CO2is not allowed to move through the well into USDWs. De-sign features include surface casing through the base ofthe lowermost USDWs with cementing to the surface, ce-menting of the long-string casing along its entire length,and installation of a packer set opposite a cemented interval. Continuous internal mechanical integrity testing(MIT) will be required to monitor well conditions and operations, and alarms and automatic down-hole and sur-face shut-off devices will be installed in case operational

limits are exceeded. External MIT will be required annuallyrather than every five years, which is typical for other typesof deep-injection wells. The proposed stringency of theconstruction requirements and the frequency of MIT exceed the Class II UIC standards used for EOR.

Chemical Nature of CO2When CO2 mixes with water it forms carbonic acid that reactsto well materials, cement, and constituents in the injectionformation. Impurities may also be present in CO2 capturedfrom anthropogenic sources, which may increase corrosivity,contaminate USDWs, or be considered hazardous.

Corrosivity. The use of conventional materials with CO2injection could result in the corrosion or degradation ofwell casings or cements and allow leakage through the wellbore into USDWs or to the surface. Lessons learned fromEOR activities by the oil and gas industry have resulted inthe use of acid-resistant cements, stainless steel components,and other corrosion-resistant materials suitable for use forgeologic sequestration. While corrosion must be preventedthroughout the life of the project, the use of specific materials is not mandated. Periodic corrosion monitoringwill be required.

Geochemistry. The acidification of the brine in the injec-tion zone may potentially cause leaching and mobilization


of naturally occurring metals or other contaminants thatcould threaten USDWs. MIT of the wells, subsurface mon-itoring, and other techniques will be required to detect potential contaminant leakage.

Impurities. While CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardoussubstance, it is possible that certain CO2 streams may containcontaminants that may be regulated by the U.S. ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the U.S. Com-prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA). Owners/operators of injectionwells will be required to make a categorical determinationas to whether the injected CO2 is considered hazardousunder RCRA. If the CO2 stream contains contaminantsthat would be hazardous, then a more stringent Class I per-mit would be required, although the proposed require-ments for Class VI wells are comparable in many ways (seeTable 1). Similarly, CO2 streams that contain hazardoussubstances or that react with groundwater to producelisted hazardous substances would not be authorized. Thelevel of purity in the CO2 stream will be highly dependentupon the power generation technology (e.g., pulverizedcoal, gasification, oxyfuel combustion) and the type ofCO2 capture methods. The availability of these technologiesand the costs of achieving the necessary purity may deter-mine how many geologic sequestration projects are actuallyimplemented.

Volume and Rate of CO2 InjectionThe amount of CO2 potentially injected for the purposes ofgeologic sequestration far exceeds the volume of materialscurrently being injected in other classes of UIC wells. According to EPA’s preamble to its proposed rule, morethan 0.6 Gig tons of CO2 have been injected for EOR operations to date and estimates that more than 90 gigtons of CO2 could be geologically sequestered in U.S. oiland gas reservoirs alone. EPA estimates based on DOE andIEA studies indicate that areas of the United States withappropriate geology could theoretically provide storagepotential for more than 3000 gig tons of geologically sequestered CO2.3

Volume. Individual geologic sequestration projects are expected to inject more than 1.0 million tons of CO2annually with operational lives of at least several decades.The vertical and lateral extent of the resulting plumesmust be contained by the confining system. With these volumes, it will be important to track the subsurface extentof the CO2 plumes and pressure fronts, monitor geophysicalchanges in subsurface formations, and if directed, monitorat the surface. Computational models will be used in con-junction with monitoring to periodically reevaluate theAoR (at least every 10 years), predict the movement of theCO2 plume, and prompt appropriate actions throughoutthe life of the project.

Rate of Injection. The rate of injection of CO2 will dependgreatly on the permeability of the receiving zone and will

likely require several wells to be drilled at some sites to obtain the necessary injection volumes. Operational controlswill be required to prevent sustained pressures that wouldfracture the injection or confining layers or induce seismicactivity such that CO2 could escape into USDWs. The pro-posed rule would require limits on injection pressures sim-ilar to existing UIC Class I deep well requirements so thatpressures would not exceed 90% of the fracture pressureof the injection zone.

Permanent Containment of CO2Owners/operators of a Class VI well must be able todemonstrate that post-injection site care and closure pro-cedures can ensure the permanent containment of CO2.EPA has proposed a fixed timeframe and a performancestandard to determine the length of post-closure respon-sibility at the site of a geologic sequestration project.

Duration of a Permit. Permits will be issued for the life ofa geologic sequestration project, including the extendedpost-closure care period. No renewal period was considerednecessary because various plans and procedures requiredby the permit call for ongoing reassessment and frequentinteractions between owners/operators and regulatorsthat would result in necessary permit amendments ormodifications.

Monitoring at the Frio Project in Texas.


Post-Injection Site Care. The pressure created within theinjection zone will drop significantly when injection isstopped, eventually resulting in a stabilization of the CO2plume. Studies cited in EPA’s proposal indicate that thisstabilization can occur on a wide timeframe of 10–100years, depending upon the nature of the injection formation.Owners /operators will be required to provide a well-plug-ging plan and a post-closure site care and closure plan withthe initial permit application. Post-injection monitoringwill be required until the CO2 plume has been immobilizedand no longer poses an endangerment to USDWs. Pressurefall-off tests will be conducted at least every five years. EPAhas tentatively proposed a default post-injection period of50 years, although shorter or longer timeframes may beauthorized based on monitoring data.

Financial Responsibility. Owners/operators of a Class VIwell will be required to demonstrate and maintain financialresponsibility and have resources for activities related toclosing and remediating geologic sequestration sites, including well-plugging, monitoring, and emergency andremedial response. EPA will provide guidance that is expected to be similar to current UIC financial responsi-bility guidance for Class II owners/operators.

Closure. Once site closure is approved, owners/operatorsmust file a report within 90 days that documents all injec-tions, well-pluggings, notifications of all applicable stateand local authorities, and other information relating tothe operations of the Class VI well that could affect theland surface or subsurface formations. Deed recordationis required to notify all potential purchasers of the propertythat the land has been used for carbon sequestration.

SummaryThe increased awareness and acceptance by industry ofthe need to reduce emissions contributing to global climate change has resulted in a growing interest in theimplementation of large commercial geologic CO2 seques-tration projects. EPA recognized that the existing UIC program is not well suited for the challenges of the high-volume, long-term storage of CO2 and has proposed re-quirements of the authorization of a new UIC Class VI wellcategory. Many of the new requirements mirror the existingClass I well construction and operational requirements forhighly controlled or hazardous materials and establish ex-tensive provisions for site assessment, well and subsurfacemonitoring, computational modeling, post-injection sitecare and closure, and financial responsibility.

Many areas in the United States offer geologic formationsthat are suitable for large-scale geologic sequestration witha potential for more than 3000 gig tons of permanent CO2storage. EPA’s proposed rules are intended to provide flex-ibility to owners/operators and regulators to develop site-specific demonstrations and plans for geologic sequestration

projects, while providing a consistent regulatory frameworkfor authorizing actions that assure protection of USDWs.It remains to be seen if these rules will provide the desiredregulatory certainty that is needed for industry to initiatethese projects or if the abundance of caution will createadditional challenges that may discourage future com-mercial development of geologic sequestration. em

References1 DOE Seeks Applications for Third Round of Clean Coal Power Initiative; U.S. Depart-

ment of Energy, August 2008; available at www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2008/08033-CCPI_Round_3_Begins.html.

2 Underground Injection Control Program. 40 CFR Parts 144-148.3 Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC)

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146; available at www.epa.gov/ fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2008/July/Day-25/w16626.pdf.

4 Ian J. Duncan, Ph.D., assistant director, Bureau of Economic Geology, Univer-sity of Texas at Austin. Personal communication, August 2008.

5 Carbon Sequestration R&D Overview; U.S. Department of Energy; available atwww.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/overview.html (accessed August2008).

6 A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeon Global Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sep-tember 2005; available at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm.

7 Hovorka, S.D.; Romero, M.L.; Treviño, R.H.; Warne, A.G.; Ambrose, W.A.; Knox,P.R.; Tremblay, T.A. Project Evaluation. Phase II: Optimal Geological Environments forCarbon Dioxide Disposal in Brine-Bearing Formations (Aquifers) in the United States;Final Report; Prepared by the University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of EconomicGeology, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, under contract no. DE-AC26-98FT40417, 2003; available atwww.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/dispslsaln.htm.

Gas and travel prices making it tough to pursueprofessional development opportunities? Getup-to-date from the comfort of your owncomputer with A&WMA’s e-learning courses!

A&WMA’s e-learning courses run throughoutthe year and cover a wide range of timelyindustry topics. Courses include:

• Boilers, Process Heaters, and Air QualityRequirements

• NOx Control for Industrial and Utility Applications• Environmental Practices Review• Internal Environmental Auditor

Visit the E-Learning Center atwww.awma.org/go/e-learning

for more information or to register.


Escalating carbon dioxide (CO2) con-centrations in the atmo sphere is an issueof global concern. Carbon capture andstorage (CCS) projects can be used tosubstantially reduce CO2 emissions to theatmosphere. Geologic sequestration en-ables fossil fuel to be decarbonized bycapturing CO2 emitted from stationarysources such as fossil fuel-fired powerplants and injecting the gas (after com-pression to form a dense, supercriticalfluid) into the subsurface in deep brinereservoirs for long-term storage. To date,however, little has been done to establishregulatory guidelines or operational stan-dards that apply explicitly to geologicCO2 sequestration in the United States.

Two key reasons for creating and implementing a ration-ale and effective regulatory framework for CCS projectsare to (1) ensure public health and safety and (2)preventenvironmental damage, particularly damage to under-ground sources of drinking water sources (USDWs). Additional issues include

• addressing the concerns of local government and residents—any negative environmental consequencesof geologic sequestration are likely to impact the localcommunity;

• providing a mechanism for stakeholders and the public to have effective input into the both the initialpermitting process and the integrity of subsequentregulatory oversight;

• supporting confidence of the market place for CO2sequestration credits by assuring transparency;

• creating a predictable and level playing field for companies involved in geological sequestration ofCO2; and

• ensuring the adequacy of long-term monitoring, mitigation, and remediation efforts.

Ian James Duncan, Ph.D., is associate director and research scientist,and J.P. Nicot is a research associate, both with the Bureau of EconomicGeology at the University of Texas at Austin; and Scott Anderson issenior policy advisor for the Climate Air Program with the Environmen-tal Defense Fund in Austin, TX. E-mail: [email protected].

f e a t u r e

State-Based Developments in Regulating CO2 Sequestrationby Ian Duncan, J.P. Nicot, and Scott Anderson


Currently, subsurface injection of wastewater and otherfluids in the United States is regulated under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Underground InjectionControl (UIC) program. The aim of the federal programis to protect USDWs under the authority of the Safe DrinkingWater Act. Five classes of injection wells are currently partof the UIC program and EPA has recently released draftrules creating a UIC Class VI specifically for CO2 seques-tration (see “EPA’s Proposed Underground Injection Control Regulations” by Russ Baier, page 6)

At the same time, a significant number of U.S. statesare working on regulatory frameworks of their own for geologic CO2 sequestration. Though less well known thanEPA’s efforts, they give important insights into the possiblenature of the regulatory framework that may arise as statesinteract with the federal efforts.

Over the past few years, many states have begun attemptsto address the regulatory issues associated with developinggeologic carbon sequestration projects. In a few states, sequestration is illegal under current state law. Existingstate law in Nevada, for example, forbids the injection ofindustrial wastes into aquifers, including saline aquifers,and this law appears to apply to CO2 sequestration projects.Although several states (including Texas) have focused onfitting the activity within existing regulatory frameworks,many states are attempting to develop new, comprehensiveapproaches to regulation of geologic CO2 sequestration.

There are two main routes for states to develop regulatoryprograms: by legislation and by rulemaking. In some cases,legislation can be quite specific in setting out what the regulations must contain. More commonly, legislation establishes guidelines for desired regulations and directsone or more state agencies to go through a rulemakingprocedure to create a set of regulations. For example,Ohio House Bill 4871 gives the state’s Division of MineralResources Management the “exclusive authority to regulatethe geologic storage of carbon dioxide.” In other states,there may not be an obvious answer to the question ofwhich agency to designate. For example, in states with ahistory of CO2-based enhanced oil recovery (e.g., Okla-homa, New Mexico, Michigan, Mississippi, Texas,Louisiana), the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency mayhave the most experience in regulating CO2 injection,while the state’s environmental or groundwater protectionagency has significant expertise regarding UIC activitiesin general.

A preliminary survey of legislation, committee reports,and other activities reveals an interesting range of objec-tives and approaches being used by different states acrossthe United States. The diverse activities of these states reflect the innovation that results from the interactions ofgroups of regulators, scientists, engineers, and policy experts with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise.In our analysis, we have included information from a widerange of sources, including draft legislation; legislationsubmitted and then tabled; reports from legislative com-mittees; final legislative bills; draft rules; reports submit-ted to rulemaking task forces; and, if available, final rules.

Our approach is designed to capture the essence of whatproblems the states are grappling with and to make someof their more innovative ideas available to a broader audience. This article reviews a range of state regulatoryapproaches.

State-Based Regulatory FrameworksMuch of the state-level activity on geological sequestrationregulations was begun by the Interstate Oil and Gas CompactCommission (IOGCC).2 In 2005, with funding from theU.S. Department of Energy (DOE), IOGCC published atask force report, entitled Carbon Capture and Storage—ARegulatory Framework for the States. This report was followedin 2007 by a second report, entitled CO2 Storage—A Legaland Regulatory Guide for States. This second report—to-gether with concerns about mitigation of climate changein some state legislatures—has resulted in an increased in-terest at the state level in developing regulations for per-mitting CO2 sequestration projects in brine reservoirs.

Washington StateWashington has primacy over regulation of UIC wellsClasses I–V; however, it has no experience with CO2-basedenhanced oil recovery. Washington is developing a sub-stantial rulemaking program. The development of draftrules guiding geological carbon sequestration is being ledby the state’s Department of Ecology. Washington Statelegislation, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6001,3 gavethe department until June 30, 2008, to finalize the rules.The draft rules have been made available online to thepublic and have been the basis for stakeholder meetingsand formal written input from interested parties. The rule-making has the stated aims of developing permitting guid-ance documents for CO2 geologic sequestration projects,including necessary geologic characterization and moni-toring; developing stricter requirements for well construc-tion design and operations for CO2 injection wells underthe UIC program; establishing criteria for evaluating carbonsequestration plans; creating a performance standard thatdefines the term “permanent sequestration”; and estab-lishing a requirement that permit applicants produce adetailed description of safety and emergency responseplans for the project.

KansasIn 2007, the Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 24194

that assigns the regulation of geologic CO2 sequestrationto the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) and provides tax incentives for CO2 sequestration. It also provides for tax incentives by exempting from propertytax any CO2 capture and sequestration. KCC is responsiblefor regulating all underground CO2 sequestration inKansas. The bill required KCC to complete rulemaking by July 1, 2008, and directed KCC to include the follow-ing in its rulemaking: site selection criteria; design and development criteria; operation criteria; casing require-ments; monitoring and measurement requirements; safetyrequirements, including public notification; closure and


abandonment requirements; and long-term monitoring.Draft rules are available for public review.

WyomingRecently passed legislation authorizing rulemaking to permit CO2 sequestration in brine reservoirs has beenpraised as the first comprehensive legislation for regulatingCO2 sequestration to be passed by a state. House Bill 905

includes a number of requirements for any CO2 seques-tration project, including a plan for periodic mechanicalintegrity testing of all wells; a monitoring plan to assess themigration of the injected CO2 and to insure the retentionof the CO2 in the geologic sequestration site; requiringproof of bonding or financial assurance to ensure that geologic sequestration sites and facilities will be constructed,operated, and closed in a specified way; a detailed plan forpost-closure monitoring, verification, maintenance, andmitigation; and proof of notice to surface owners, mineralclaimants, mineral owners, lessees, and other owners ofrecord of subsurface interests. This bill has not yet resultedin rulemaking.

UtahThe Governor of Utah set up a Blue Ribbon AdvisoryCouncil (BRAC) on Climate Change to assess the optionsthe state has is combating climate change. The 2007 BRACreport6 identified key questions to be addressed in the development of a consistent regulatory framework forCCS projects, including what immunity may be requiredfrom potentially applicable criminal and civil environ-mental penalties; what property rights may need to be established or clarified, such as the possible passage of titleto CO2 (including to the government) during transporta-tion, injection, and storage; what government-mandatedcaps on long-term CO2 liability may be required; howshould owners/operators of CO2 transportation and storagefacilities be licensed; and how should intellectual propertyrights related to CCS, and monitoring of CO2 storage facilities be handled. The BRAC report also suggested thatother regulatory barriers include revisiting the traditionalleast-cost/least-risk regulatory standard or mitigatingadded risks and financing challenges of CCS projects withassured, timely cost-recovery.

Senate Bill 2027 passed by the Utah Legislature in 2007initiated an ambitious, wide- ranging rulemaking activityto be completed by 2011 and focused on site characteri-zation approval; geomechanical, geochemical, and hy-drogeological simulation; risk assessment; mitigation andremediation protocols; issuance of permits for test, injec-tion, and monitoring wells; specifications for the drilling,construction, and maintenance of wells; issues concern-

ing ownership of subsurface rights and pore space; allowed composition of injected matter; testing,

monitoring, measurement, and verification forthe entirety of the geologic sequestration

chain of operations, from the point of capture of the CO2 to the sequestration

site; closure and decommissioning pro-cedure; short- and long-term liabilityand indemnification for sequestrationsites; and conversion of enhanced oilrecovery operations to geologicalCO2 sequestration sites.

MontanaFor the past few years, Montana hasbeen grappling with legislation pro-posed to develop a regulatory frame-work for geologic CO2 sequestration.

Senate Bill 2188 attempted to initiate aprocess to create a regulatory framework,

including establishing a regulatory pro-gram for CO2 sequestration; evaluating

possible CO2 sequestration sites; establishingrecordkeeping and reporting requirements;

and establishing requirements for retention ofCO2 and for verification and monitoring. The bill

Over the past few years, many states have begun attempts to address the regulatoryissues associated with developing geologic carbon sequestration projects.


(under Executive Order 2006-69), completed in December2007,12 suggested that the implementation of a regulatoryframework for geologic CO2 sequestration raises numerousproperty rights, monitoring, verification, and liability issues and should address the following questions:

• Should CO2 be treated as a waste or a commodityand how should the regulatory framework deal withthis distinction?

• Who owns the pore space in geologic formationsand can the interests of the owner of the pore spacebe balanced against the interests of the owner ofmineral interests in the context of long-term CO2sequestration?

• How can a liability framework be framed protectpublic and private interests for commercial-scaleCO2 sequestration projects? Should state or federalgovernment?

These issues bear more on the broad legal context forsequestration rather than on a regulatory framework. TheNew Mexico Legislature is expected to develop legislationon CO2 sequestration during its 2009 session.

SummaryThe IOGCC model regulations thus far have heavily influenced the wording of proposed legislation and draftrulemaking occurring at the state level, but they have notbeen adopted whole or in part as regulations. This may bemainly a product of timing, given that the IOGCC reportwas only made public in late 2007. Washington has arguably has the most comprehensive and carefullythought out permitting rules. The state encouraged andreceived extensive input and commentary from stake-holders and the public. This approach provides a usefulmodel for other states to follow. A key issue as state regulatoryframeworks evolve will be how they mesh with developingEPA standards for permitting under the UIC program. Itis likely that most if not all of the state rulemaking will haveto be modified to meet new federal standards. em

References1 Ohio House Bill 487. See www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_HB_487.2 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). See www.iogcc.state.ok.us.3 Washington Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6001. See www.leg.wa.gov/pub/

billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6001-S.PL.pdf.4 Kansas House Bill 2419. See www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/2419.pdf.5 Wyoming House Bill 90. See legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/Introduced/HB0090.pdf.6 Governor of Utah’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Council (BRAC) on Climate Change

Final Report, 2007. See www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/final_report.htm.7 Utah Senate Bill 202. See www.le.state.ut.us/~2008/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0202.htm.8 Montana Senate Bill 218. See data.opi.mt.gov/legbills/2007/Minutes/Senate/

070202NAS_Sm1.pdf.9 Oklahoma Senate Bill 1765. See climate.alston.com/files/docs/OK%

20SB%201765.pdf.10 California Assembly Bill 705. See info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_

0701-0750/ab_705_bill_19990902_amended_sen.pdf.11 Geologic Carbon Sequestration Strategies for California: The Assembly Bill 1925

Report to the California Legislature; Final Staff Report; California Energy Com-mission, November 2007. See www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-100/CEC-500-2007-100-SF.PDF.

12 Final Carbon Sequestration Report; New Mexico Energy, Minerals, Natural Resources Department Oil Conservation Division, December 2007. Seewww.emnrd.state.nm.us/ocd/documents/CarbonSequestrationFINALRE-PORT1212007.pdf.

had not been adopted at the time this article was writtenand the Montana Legislature was engaged in an interimstudy on the subject.

OklahomaThe Oklahoma Legislature this year passed Senate Bill No.1765,9 which initiates a study of a regulatory frameworkfor CO2 sequestration based, in part, on the IOGCCmodel regulations. Under this bill, the Oklahoma De-partment of Environmental Quality and the CorporationCommission are directed to develop a memorandum ofunderstanding outlining a shared regulatory oversightscheme. The commission is directed to develop a permittingapproach, including rulemaking and establishing a financialsurety approach. Oklahoma currently has primacy overUIC Class I–V wells.

Senate Bill 1765 has rather general language directingthe agency in the rulemaking process. It states that inorder to establish a storage facility for CO2, the state regulatory agency shall find that

• the storage facility and reservoir are suitable and feasible for the injection and storage of CO2;

• a good faith effort has been made to obtain the consent of a majority of the owners having propertyinterests substantially affected by the storage facilityand that the operator intends to acquire any remain-ing interest by eminent domain or as otherwise allowed by statute;

• the use of the storage facility for the geologic stor-age of CO2 will not contaminate other formations containing fresh water or oil, gas, coal, or othercommercial mineral deposits; and

• the proposed storage will not unduly endangerhuman health and the environment.

CaliforniaIn California, Assembly Bill 70510 was intended to directcreation of regulations for carbon sequestration for adoptionby 2011. The state’s Division of Oil, Gas, and GeothermalResources was directed to develop standards and regula-tions for the following: site characterization and selection;geomechanical, geochemical, and hydro-geological simulation; risk assessment; mitigation and remediation protocols; permits for test, injection, and monitoring wells;specifications for the drilling, construction, and mainte-nance of wells; and issues concerning ownership of subsurface rights and pore space. Assembly Bill 705 wasrecently withdrawn and there is currently no legislation orrulemaking activity pending in the state on CCS regula-tion, although the California Energy Commission issued athorough report regarding CO2 sequestration in Novem-ber 2007.11

New MexicoNew Mexico has a long history of oil and gas productionincluding CO2-based enhanced oil recovery. An interimreport by a task force set up by the Governor of New Mexico


Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is thestorage of carbon dioxide (CO2; capturedpredominantly from coal-fired powerplants) in deep brine, depleted oil, andnatural gas reservoirs. If CCS is to have asignificant impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, on a time scale that willmake a difference to global climate change,then an adequate regulatory frameworkmust be put in place as soon as possible.

A viable and effective policy and regulatory framework forgeologic carbon sequestration must strike a delicate bal-ance between making a system that minimizes the burdenon the companies involved (to both encourage private enterprise to be involved in implementing CO2 seques-tration and to encourage innovation), and has sufficientrigor to ensure the health and safety of the public, the environmental integrity of sequestration projects, publicconfidence and support, and a project’s effectiveness inmitigating atmospheric CO2.

These factors are, in part, tied to the issue of CO2 leakagefrom geologic reservoirs. Very slow leakage from CO2sequestered in deep brine reservoirs poses no immediatethreat to public health and safety, but does threaten toundo the beneficial effect of CO2 sequestration on globalwarming. Very slow leakage could also result in the con-tamination of fresh water aquifers. Catastrophic leakageof CO2 (though extremely unlikely) could threaten public

Ian James Duncan, Ph.D., is associate director and research scientistwith the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas atAustin. E-mail: [email protected].

f e a t u r e

Requirements for Developing a Deep Brine Carbon Sequestration Projectby Ian Duncan

Photo: The U.S. Gulf Coast region could ultimately involve tens if not hundreds of CO2 storage sites.


health and safety. In addition to CO2 leakage, large-scaleCO2 sequestration in brine reservoirs could displacebrines or brackish water into fresh water. These risks, evenif statistically minute, have rightfully drawn attention tothe importance of developing an appropriate regulatoryframework for geologic sequestration that directly takeson the leakage issue. With that in mind, this article focuseson the following question: What scientific and engineeringstudies will likely be required for CO2 sequestration inbrine reservoirs?

Site Selection and EvaluationRegional Evaluation of Alternative SitesSite selection for a carbon sequestration project should bebased on a regional evaluation of alternative sites todemonstrate that the proposed storage site is the bestavailable, given all constraints. Selected sites should havesufficient injectivity to enable a cost-effective injectionplan; the capacity to store the anticipated volume of CO2;a natural containment system or seal capable of retainingCO2 for time scales of 1000 years; and the existence of laterally extensive sealing formations that can ensure long-term containment. In the future, governments may take aproactive role in predefining and characterizing the bestregional brine reservoirs for CO2 sequestration.

Geological Characterization Site characterization should focus on three key issues: sustainable injectivity, capacity, and the effectiveness ofcontainment. Injectivity is the rate CO2 can be pumpedinto the reservoir, which is affected by nature of the reservoirrock (i.e., porosity, permeability, natural fractures), for-mation damage caused by drilling and completion fluids,and injection pressure. Capacity assessment is based onnot only the volume and structure of the reservoir, but alsoits heterogeneity, channelization of CO2 flow (i.e., sweepefficiency), and constraints on maximum injection pressurefrom geomechanics. Confinement requires a laterally extensive seal rock (or cap rock) that prevents buoyantCO2 from flowing upward into aquifers containing underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).

The minimal requirements for an adequate reservoircharacterization include:

1. A basic static geological model of the reservoir, in-cluding stratigraphic correlations, structural cross-sec-tions, a model for porosity, and permeability variationin the reservoir based on well log data extrapolatedby use sedimentary facies interpretations and/orthree-dimensional seismic data. Particular attentionshould be paid to the nature and location of faults andexisting wells that penetrate the primary seal andcould potentially act as conduits for CO2 leakage.

2. A dynamic reservoir model or flow simulation using a multiphase flow simulator (including reasonable estimates for residual saturation) to predict the natureand extent of the CO2 plume and its associated pres-sure anomaly in the brine.

Important issues during the site screening and selec-tion process for CO2 storage include storage capacity and injectivity of the brine reservoir; integrity of the containmentzone, particularly the integrity of the top (or overlying)seal; and potential leakage pathways and the possible impacts of leakage of CO2 from these pathways, includinglocating all abandoned and operating wells within the pro-jected zone of anomalous pressure.

The model regulations published by the Interstate Oiland Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)1 state that thesite characterization of a CO2 storage reservoir should include a description of mechanisms of geologic confine-ment (i.e., rock properties, regional pressure gradients,structural features, and absorption characteristics) and thecapability of the confinement system to prevent migrationof CO2 beyond the proposed storage reservoir (see “State-Based Developments in Regulating CO2 Sequestration” byIan Duncan, J.P. Nicot, and Scott Anderson on page 12).

Risk Assessment Risk assessment should focus on potential negative out-comes from the proposed sequestration project. The natureand magnitude of these potential adverse outcomes shouldplay a key role in approving a permit and for approvingthe monitoring program. Key factors that should be con-sidered in the risk characterization include the compositionof the injected CO2; the nature and location of potentialleakage pathways relative to the location of risk receptors;the potential impact on health and public safety, sensitiveecologies, endangered species, and migratory bird nestingareas; the quality of containment (particularly the qualityof the seal) and the number (and characteristics) of wellpenetrations through the seal within the projected area ofthe CO2 plume and its associated zone of anomalouslyhigh pressure; the capacity of the site relative to the pro-posed injection volume (paying particular attention to thepercentage of CO2 that modeling shows will be immobileby the time of closure of the project); and the percentageof the maximum allowable injection pressure proposedfor project injection program. Once the key risks and leakage

Model for stacked storage in the Gulf Coast.Source: www.gulfcoastcarbon.com

Extended pipeline system to additional stacked storage

CO2 enhanced oil andgas production

Storage in stacked brine formations


scenarios have been identified, an attempt should bemade to quantitatively assess their likelihood. It is importantthat at this stage risk assessment involve stakeholder input.Transparent interactions with the local community at thisstage can avoid problems later. The risk assessment shouldhave sufficient resolution and precision that the approachneeded for monitoring is clear.

Requirements for Initiation of Site OperationsInjection and Pressure Management PlanPressure management during injection is key to minimizingthe risk of CO2 leakage. A careful, reliable approach topressure management, consistent with sound engineeringand scientific principle, should be a requirement of anyregulatory system. The main concerns related to the pres-sures attained in CO2 injection are that fluid pressures willget high enough to either reactivate existing faults or tocreate new faults or fractures underground. The fluidpressures necessary to reactivate faults and to create newfaults depend on the state of stress in the rock prior to in-jection, the mechanical strength of the reservoir and caprocks, and their poroelastic character. These complexitiesmean that no simple set of prescriptive pressure limits canadequately address these issues.

MMV PlanAn adequate monitoring, modeling, and verification(MMV) plan to establish risk and to project leak rates bothpre- and post-project closure is essential. A key part of anyCO2 sequestration permit requirement is an effective andaccurate approach to monitoring. Monitoring shouldfocus on protecting natural resources (particularlygroundwater) and ensuring the health and safety of thelocal population. A wide range of approaches to monitoringhave been used in pilot projects in the United States andelsewhere. For example, the Bureau of Economic Geology’sFrio Pilot Injection Project (2004–2006) near Houston,TX, used four types of monitoring:

1. Geochemical techniques included sampling of (1)deep subsurface brines; (2) shallow groundwateraquifers; and (3) near surface groundwater.

2. Hydrological techniques based on integrating meas-urement of pressure and flow-rate with multiphaseflow simulation.

3. Geophysical monitoring techniques included: (1)use of a monitoring well down-the-well a neutronprobe to directly estimate the CO2 saturation insidethe plume; (2) vertical seismic profiling; and (3)inter-well seismic tomography.

4. Surface-based technologies included measurementof soil gas flux of CO2 and soil gas chemistry.

One important lesson learned during the Frio projectwas the critical importance of conducting computer sim-ulations both before and during the injection to aid in design of the monitoring program. Conducting a range

of simulations prior to initiation of injection can help establish the expected magnitude of change in key parameters such as the saturation of CO2, the state ofstress and fluid pressure in the reservoir, the temperature distribution within the reservoir, and the variation of waterchemistry within the reservoir, particularly the pH.

A carefully designed monitoring program will provideinformation that can be used to refine the computer simulations of CO2 flow in the reservoir.

Specific monitoring strategies should be developed for each of the four life-cycle phases of a subsurface stor-age project: pre-operation, operation, closure, and post-closure phases.

Pre-Operation Phase. The period of reservoir character-ization, establishing a baseline for monitoring measure-ments. During this phase, the physical and chemicalparameters to be monitored are identified and the expected range in magnitude of these parameters over thelife of the project is estimated. Based on these estimates,appropriate monitoring systems can be selected and spatial and temporal measurement strategies developed.

Operation Phase. The period of active injection. Themost extensive monitoring phase in which monitoring focuses on the integrity of the injection, shut-in, plugged,or abandoned wells; and determining the evolving geom-etry of the plume of injected CO2.

Closure Phase. The period of monitoring after sealing ofthe engineered reservoir to ensure the integrity of the wellclosure.

Post-Closure Phase. The period of long-term monitoringafter well closure. A limited range of monitoring, withlengthening time intervals after the reservoir has beensealed. The level of monitoring activities should be greaterif CO2 leakage is detected in earlier phases of the projector if there is a legal dispute, or some other problem.

Any MMV plan should

• begin with baseline measurements over the entireproject prior to the initiation of CO2 injection;

• be sufficient to demonstrate that the project meetsall performance standards entailed in the permit;

• be sufficient to detect threats to USDWs and enabletimely remediation aimed at preventing such con-tamination;

• enable verification of injected volumes for CO2 credits;• be risk-based in striving to detect most likely hazard

and leakage;• facilitate operation in a “learn-as-you-go” environment

by providing a quantitative basis for appropriate improvements in injection strategies; and

• include an ongoing evaluation of the accuracy of theinitial capacity estimates.

It is important that the regulatory framework be flexible


enough to recognize that there will be no single geo-chemical, geophysical, or geological approach that will beappropriate for all projects. For this reason, requirementsfor the nature of MMV plans in the permitting rules arebest directed by expectations on performance rather thanspecification of technologies. For example, WashingtonState’s proposed regulations require owners/operators ofsequestration projects to develop a monitoring programthat is designed to identify CO2 leakage from the geologiccontainment system to the atmosphere, surface water, andgroundwater. The monitoring program must be able toidentify groundwater quality degradation in aquifers priorto degradation of any potable aquifer and must includeobservations in the monitoring zone(s) that can identifymigration to aquifers as close stratigraphically to the geologic containment system as possible.2 Again, this regu-lation is formed as a series of expectations or performancestandards rather than a set of specifications.

Remediation PlanThe main focus of a remediation plan should be to protectgroundwater resources. The greatest need for remediationif CO2 leaks into USDWs may be created by heavy metals(e.g., Fe, Mn, Pb, As) that are mobilized by low-pH fluids.Approaches to remediation might include a pump-and-treat approach; treatment barriers for the removal of acidmobilized trace metals; containing the plume by manipu-lating pressure gradients in the aquifer to constrain themovement of contaminated water; and removing accu-mulations of CO2 gas in groundwater by drilling wellsthrough the accumulations and producing CO2.

Under Washington State’s proposed regulations, eachplan is required to identify trigger thresholds that, if exceeded, will instigate corrective action. The regulationssuggest that mitigation and remediation plans should address responses to the failure of the geologic containmentsystem. The areas for concern for remediative action arelisted in the draft regulations as degradation of water qualityoutside the geologic containment system; release of CO2to the atmosphere; or any other outcome that poses anunacceptable risk to public health or the environment.The regulations outline possible remediative action asconducting well repairs; reducing injection pressure,reservoir, or formation pressure; creating a pressure barrierthrough increased pressure above geologic containmentsystem; the interception, recovery, and re-injection of CO2;and the removal of injected materials.

SummaryTo have a significant impact on decreasing atmosphericCO2 levels, geologic sequestration in deep brine reservoirswill have to occur on a very large scale. For example, theGulf Coast region of the United States could ultimately involve tens if not hundreds of storage sites with injectionprojects creating CO2 plumes with a cumulative surface areaamounting to hundreds of square kilometers. The scale ofindividual injection projects is likely to be as large as or largerthan any fluid injection projects previously permitted under

the existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Un-derground Injection Control (UIC) Program. In addition,CO2 is more buoyant (and therefore more upwardly mobile)than other fluids regulated by the UIC Program. All thesefactors combined lead us to the conclusion that the regula-tory framework for geologic sequestration in deep brinereservoirs should be comprehensive and take into consider-ation concepts and approaches that significantly extend thescope of the current UIC framework.

Any regulatory framework for CO2 sequestrationshould pay careful attention to relative risks. A key factorshould be both the severity and probability of leakage andthe scale of the potential impact on the local residents andecology (e.g., the regulatory approach to permitting a 15-million ton/yr injection in the vicinity of a major met-ropolitan area vs. a similar injection in an area with verysparse population and very low biological diversity). Therisk profile of large CO2 injection projects differ from contaminated water injections due to the buoyancy ofCO2. As a result, the decades of UIC experience in permitting and monitoring such injection projects givesus limited insights into the behavior of large CO2 plumes.Numerical simulation should be an important tool inidentifying potential risks.

Comprehensive education and training of regulatoryagency staff will be a prerequisite to effective implemen-tation of any performance-based regulatory regime. Geo-logic CO2 sequestration is a new technology that justifiesand, arguably, requires a new approach to regulation andpermitting. Development of a regulatory framework forgeologic CO2 sequestration provides an opportunity implement new approaches to permitting and to enableimproved accountability. em

References1 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). See www.iogcc.state.ok.us.2 Washington Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6001. See www.leg.wa.gov/pub/

billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6001-S.PL.pdf.

Further Reading

Benson, S.M.; Hepple, R.P. Prospects for early detection and options

for remediation of leakage from CO2 sequestration projects. In The

CO2 Capture and Storage Project (CCP) for Carbon Dioxide Storage

in Deep Geologic Formations for Climate Change Mitigation, Vol. 2:

Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide with Monitoring and Verification;

Elsevier Publishing: Burlington, MA, 2004.

Burton, E.; Myhre, R.; Myer, L.; Birkinshaw, K.; Geologic Carbon

Sequestration Strategies for California: The Assembly Bill 1925 Re-

port to the California Legislature; Final Staff Report; California Energy

Commission: Sacramento, CA, 2007. See www.energy.ca.gov/

2007publications/CEC-500-2007-100/CEC-500-2007-100-SF.PDF.

� Guidance Notebooks - $400.00 (incl. shipping)

AAdvanced New Source

Review Workshop

REGISTRATION FORM

Last Name First Name

Title Name for Badge

Company

Mailing Address

City/State/Zip

Telephone Fax

Please check your preferred workshop location:

Location Workshop Dates Advanced Reg. Deadline

� Orlando, FL Sept. 22-25, 2008 Aug. 21, 2008

� Las Vegas, NV Apr. 27-30, 2009 Mar. 23, 2009

� Scottsdale, AZ Sept. 14-17, 2009 Aug. 14, 2009

Note: Your reservation is not complete until payment is received. Please check

one of the boxes below to indicate method of payment:

� Check enclosed.

� Fax me the form needed to charge my credit card.

� Send me an invoice.

Hotel Information (state group code when making reservations):

• Four Points By Sheraton – September 22-25, 2008

5905 International Dr., Orlando, FL

Tel.: (800) 327-1366Group Code: RTP Environ. Assoc.Rate: $89.00 S/D occupancy; honored 3 days before/after workshop*

Cut-off Date: August 21, 2008

• Harrah’s Las Vegas – April 27-30, 2009

3475 Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, NV

Tel.: (888) 458-8471Group Code: SHRTP9Rate: $125.00 S/D occupancy; honored 3 days before/after workshop*

Cut-off Date: March 23, 2009

• Hilton Scottsdale Resort & Villas – September 14-17, 2009

6333 North Scottsdale Rd., Scottsdale, AZ

Tel.: (800) 498-7396Group Code: RTPRate: $129.00 S/D occupancy; honored 3 days before/after workshop*

Cut-off Date: August 14, 2009

* Based on hotel availability.

Registration Fee (includes CD with $800 in materials if purchase separately):

• $2190.00 - Advance Registration• $2390.00 - Registration received after Adv. Reg. Deadline• Please make checks payable to:

RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.

304-A W. Millbrook Rd.Raleigh, NC 27609

For additional information, please contact Karen Santala by:

phone (919) 845-1422, ext. 21; fax (919) 845-1424; or email [email protected]

A hard copy of the Outline and Index will be provided and used during the workshop. A CD containingall the referenced documents will also be provided. You will not need to access the CD during theworkshop; however, if you wish to do so, you will need a laptop with a CD drive. To purchase a hardcopy of the referenced documents, please check the appropriate box(es) below and include the additionalcost with your registration fee. The books will be shipped to the address you provide above (cannot beshipped to a P.O. Box) and they will arrive shortly after the workshop.

� Guidance Notebooks - $400.00 (incl. shipping) � Red Books - $400.00 (incl. shipping)

(hard copies of most pre-1996 EPA-approved (hard copies of remaining guidance and Federal

guidance) Register notices)

� NSR Workshop Manual - $50.00 (incl. shipping)

Receive these books at a discount with your workshop registration!

New Source Review Guidance Notebooks – Five-volume set = $350 + shipping (est. $50, check box above) (reg. $400 + shipping)The popular New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Guidance Notebook set is a compilation of morethan 3,000 pages of policy memoranda, letters, and information developed to aid implementation of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)and Nonattainment area air pollution control programs under the Clean Air Act. Update II (Parts 1 and 2) is a recent update to the original three-volume set (i.e., Volume I, Volume II, and the first Update volume). Update II includes special features not available via EPA’s TechnologyTransfer Network (TTN). These features provide added value to the original three volumes as well, since they apply to the entire collection of policymemos contained in all five volumes. These features include:• An appendix that reproduces the NSR rules and indicates beside each section the memos that affect or interpret that portion of the rule.

• For separate indices that are extremely useful for quickly looking up memos in all five volumes, organized by date, category number, subject,and author.

• A list of discrepancies and referrals within the memoranda for all five volumes.

New Source Review Workshop Manual = $35 + shipping (est. $15, check box above) (reg. $40 + shipping)Draft, 1990, 220 pages, soft cover. This document was developed for use in conjunction with new source review workshops and training, and toguide permitting officials in the implementation of the new source review (NSR) program. The manual is designed to: (1) describe in general terms,and illustrate by examples, the requirements of the NSR regulations and existing policies interpreting those regulations; and (2) provide suggestedmethods of meeting the regulatory requirements as they have been interpreted by EPA. This document is still in great demand because of the usefulcontent of the material.

• AN INTENSIVE 4-DAY COURSE! This course assumes that you have a basic knowledge of the NSR air pollution permitting rules. It

focuses on how the most important of the over 13,300 pages of policy documents issued since 1974 interpret and affect the NSR rules. It

will also cover the NSR Workshop Manual and NSR Reform Rulemaking.

• Taught by Gary McCutchen, Principal of RTP Environmental Associates and former Chief of EPA’s New Source Review Section. Mr.

McCutchen has provided training on permitting rules to over 8000 students.

• The Advanced New Source Review workshop expansion and update has made this an even more intensive course with a mix of

regulations, EPA policy and first-hand experience that attendees have praised.


Corporate social responsibility reporting issimilar in concept to environment, health,and safety (EH&S) reporting, but with abroadened emphasis on social matters,such as ethical labor practices; training, education, and diversity of workforce; andcorporate philanthropic initiatives. Theterms “corporate social responsibility” and“sustainability” are used interchangeably by companies on a global basis, especiallyby multinational firms. There is consid-erable pressure on companies from stock-holders, outside stakeholders, consumers,and other groups to demonstrate tangiblebenefits to the “triple bottom line”: economic value and environmental andsocial impacts.1

Toward the end of the 1990s, EH&S managers beganusing EH&S management information solutions (EMIS)to streamline their EH&S data collection, manipulation,and reporting activities to save valuable time and money.2

Today, the trend is for EH&S managers to want to expandthe use of their EMIS to capture sustainability metrics.Some EH&S managers have even expressed a desire to integrate their EMIS with a new set of tools: Corporate Sus-tainability Management Information Solutions (CSMIS).

Numerous EH&S professionals are undergoing or havealready completed a change in their day-to-day responsi-bilities because there is a greater need and expectation bytheir employer to collect, compile, analyze, and report sustainability data. Some organizations (e.g., Dow Chemical,DuPont, and Home Depot) have created a separate man-agement position to handle these responsibilities (e.g.,Chief Sustainability Officer or Sustainability Manager),3

whereas other organizations have simply expanded theEH&S manager’s role to include these additional duties.

This article presents the results and conclusions drawnfrom a recent online, inter-industry survey of companiesabout their tools and drivers for managing sustainabilitydata.

Christina Schwerdtfeger, Ph.D., REA, is the compliance practiceleader, and Joanne Schroeder, P.E., is a founding partner, both with Environmental Data Solutions Group LLC. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].

f e a t u r e

A BenchmarkStudy of CurrentPractices andTools for Sustainabilityby Christina Schwerdtfeger and Joanne Schroeder

$100B to $200B4.8%

$25B to $99B9.5%

$10B to $24B23.8%

<$5B42.9%

$5B to $9B19.0%

2007 Annual Revenues for Each Respondent


Purpose of SurveyEnvironmental Data Solutions Group conducted an inter-industry survey to benchmark current practices and toidentify trends and statistics about how corporate sustain-ability information is being managed. The goals of this survey were to baseline current EMIS practices; identifydrivers for corporate sustainability metrics and reporting;determine which tools or solutions are currently beingused; and identify the costs of and satisfaction with avail-able tools and CSMIS.

Survey ParticipantsParticipants in this survey are responsible for a total of44,308 facilities on a global basis and work in the followingindustry sectors: aerospace and defense, chemical manu-facturing, consumer products, energy and utilities, federalgovernment, industrial manufacturing, pharmaceuticals,biotechnology, telecommunication equipment and services,and transportation services. The majority of the respondentshad job titles such as “EH&S or Sustainability Manager,”with the exception of one “Chief Financial Officer” andone “Supply Manager.”

Nearly half of the companies that participated in thesurvey (48%) are listed on the Fortune 1000 list of compa-nies. There were numerous large companies incorporatedoutside the United States, the largest of which had annualrevenues in excess of US$179 billion. The smallest companyhad annual revenues of US$231 million and the averageannual revenue for all respondents was US$18 billion.

Current EMIS UseA substantial fraction of all respondents (78%) currentlyuse an EMIS, with the earliest reported use in 1997. Theaverage and median date of initial use was 2002. Many respondents indicated that they use a combination of soft-ware tools to manage their EMIS data: commercial off-the-shelf products (41%), custom software developedin-house (47%), and spreadsheet or database tools (56%).The level of satisfaction with the EMIS was reported as 6.2,on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = poor and 10 = outstanding.Fifteen percent (15%) of respondents indicated that theircurrent EMIS tools are inadequate and need replacementor upgrading.

Sustainability DriversSeveral drivers are influencing companies’ decisions tocollect, track, and report corporate social responsibilitymetrics: transparency (56%), goodwill and perception ofoutside stakeholders (48%), shareholders (28%), and regulations or laws (28%). Two respondents indicated thatthere is a new corporate initiative or strategy sponsoredby their chief executive officer that is driving their sustainability program. (Note: Respondents were allowedto indicate more than one answer in their response, butwere not asked to prioritize. This is why the sum of theresponses may exceed 100% for some questions.)

Respondents indicated that they track and/or reportcorporate social responsibility data according to the

following standards: Global Reporting Index (GRI; 60%), in-house metrics (44%), ISO 14001 for EnvironmentalManagement Systems (20%), and industry establishedmetrics (16%). Respondents who work for federal gov-ernment agencies cited Executive Order 13423 as theirprimary driver. Fifteen percent (15%) of respondents in-dicated that they have a recent internal policy or mandate.

Because sustainability data can be reported in a varietyof venues, respondents were asked to identify where theyreport their data. Respondents listed one or more of thefollowing venues: external company report (48%), internalcompany report (48%), company Web site (30%), publicallyavailable forum such as GRI (22%), financial reports suchas annual stockholder or Securities and Exchange Com-mission (SEC) report (13%), and Earth Day celebration(13%). Surprisingly, 13% indicated that their sustainabilitydata is collected, but not reported at all.

More than three-quarters (77%) of respondents indi-cated that their EH&S department is responsible for trackingand reporting corporate social responsibility metrics.Other departments that were listed as having responsibilityincluded supply, sourcing, contracts and quality, facilities,engineering, human resources, and sustainability. No respondent listed public relations or corporate commu-nications as the responsible department, which is often anindication of a “soft” sustainability program that is not fullyembedded in the operations of the business.4

Sustainability MetricsParticipants in the survey were asked which of the GRI indicators they track and/or report at this time. It is logicalthat 89% of EH&S and sustainability managers are tracking

77% of respondents said their EH&S department is responsible for

tracking and reporting corporate social responsibility metrics.

$1M to $5M6.7%

$500K to $1M6.7%

$100K to $500K6.7%

$10K to $100K20.0%

<$10K59.9%

CSMIS Deployment Costs for Each Respondent


environmental indictors, given their traditional role andresponsibilities in EH&S. In contrast, tracking and reportingof three other indicators was significantly lower: humanrights (55%), society (46%), and product responsibility(48%), due to less familiarity or concern in traditionalEH&S departments.

Since health and safety laws and fair labor standards arepervasive, it appears that the data for labor practices anddecent work indicators is readily available and easily reported (84%). Similarly, based on the availability of datafor economic performance, 65% of respondents are track-ing and reporting economic indicators.

The largest struggles with corporate social responsibil-ity reporting arise from the mechanics of collecting themetrics (81%), determining which metric to collect(50%), reporting the metric (23%), and defending themetric collected (15%).

CSMIS StatusOnly 26% of respondents indicated that they are using aCSMIS at this time. The earliest implementation date was2003, with an average and median implementation dateof 2005 and 2006, respectively. For companies that areusing a CSMIS, 75% are using spreadsheets and databasetools to manage their data and 38% developed customizedtools in-house. Only 13% are using commercial off-the-shelf products.

The cost of implementing a CSMIS varied enormously,depending on the size of the company, the number of locations, and the type of CSMIS deployed. Respondentsindicated the following expenditures on their CSMIS deployments: less than US$10,000 (60%), betweenUS$10,000 and US$100,000 (20%), between US$100,000and US$500,000 (7%), between US$500,000 and US$1 million (7%), and between US$1million andUS$5 million (7%).

Deployment costs ranged from less than US$10,000 toa maximum of US$5 million, with the average cost in therange of US$450,000. Interestingly enough, Excel spread-sheets were used for companies spending in the lowest

ranges of cost (approximately US$10,000) and these werealso the companies who stated they were the least satisfiedwith the system and were facing the largest challenges associated with collection of corporate social responsibilitydata. It appears that while Excel is quickly and easily understood tool, it provides little in terms of solution, security, and workflow enhancements from a long-termperspective. Companies who moved beyond Excel and intoa relational database that offered workflow enhancementstended to be the most satisfied with the final outcome.

Despite the low implementation rates of CSMIS, respondents believe that using a CSMIS will help the defensibility of their data (90%). Only 14% undergo auditing by a third party for data verification at this time.

The level of satisfaction with CSMIS ranged from 1 to 8on a scale of 1 to 10 with 4.6 as the average. Only 19% ofrespondents stated that their CSMIS tools are already inplace and working well. Respondents had various com-ments about the current state of their CSMIS:

• Need to develop better tools for tracking and reporting (44%)

• Desire to expand current EMIS to add sustainabilitytracking and reporting capability (30%)

• Need to investigate commercial off-the-shelf productand implementation (26%)

• Just starting to think that CSMIS is a good idea (26%)

October 12-16, 2008, Pasadena, California

The ISEE-ISEA Joint Annual Conference will bring together speakers andattendees from around the world to exchange ideas about exposure,health, and epidemiology in a global environment. The exciting schedulefeatures four plenary sessions, 43 insightful symposia, 61 oral sessionswith 305 presentations, over 500 contributed posters, and plenty ofsocial activities and networking opportunities for attendees.

Visit the conference Web site to register, or to sign up for workshops,training sessions, and society membership.

International Society for Environmental Epidemiology &International Society of Exposure Analysis

2008 Joint Annual Conference: Exposureand Health in a Global Environment

http://secure.awma.org/events/isee-isea


• Have been reporting sustainability data for years (22%)• Still figuring out what to report and our

metrics/goals (26%)• Seeking a new EMIS that has corporate social respon-

sibility tracking and reporting capability (11%)• No interest in combining an EMIS and CSMIS (4%)• No interest in CSMIS right now (4%)

ConclusionsIt appears that 74% of the participants in this survey havenot reached the “tipping point” in their sustainability pro-gram and implemented some type of CSMIS. Althoughthere seems to be a strong desire to figure out which metricsto track and report and to have defensible data, manyEH&S professionals seem to be coping by using simplespreadsheet and database tools. Those who have progressedbeyond simple spreadsheets seem to be far happier withthe results of their system from an ease of collection anddefensibility perspective. It seems likely that there will bea surge in interest in CSMIS tools (similar to what occurred with EMIS in the late 1990s) as companies realizethat they can streamline their collection, manipulation,and reporting of sustainability data to save valuable timeand money.

It is interesting to note, however, that much of the information managed in a CSMIS is actually collected or retrieved from other integrated systems throughout an organization. For example, much of the “environmen-tal” information that is factored into corporate social

responsibility is already being tracked in a company’sEMIS; and some of the human rights information may becollected in human resources systems. Until companieshave a better handle of unique specifics associated withtheir CSMIS, they must rely on the data outputs fromother systems. The reality is that there is no one “cookiecutter” answer for all companies. Many factors should beconsidered in the development and implementation of acorporate social responsibility program, such as marketperspective, ease of reporting, defensibility of data, and industry expectations. em

References1 A Special Report on Corporate Social Responsibility: Just Good Business; The

Economist January 19, 2008; p 2.2 Mock, R.; Schroeder, J. EMIS Checkup: A Benchmark Study of EMIS Performance

and Effectiveness; EM June 2002; p 14.3 Deutsch, C. Companies Giving Green an Office; The New York Times July 3,

2007; available at www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/business/03sustain.html (accessed June 2008).

4 A Special Report on Corporate Social Responsibility: Just Good Business; TheEconomist January 19, 2008; p 14.

About EDSGEnvironmental Data Solutions Group, LLC (EDSG; www.edsg.com)integrates information technology tools to optimize EH&S per-formance. Taking a consultative, systems-based approach towardcorporate social responsibility, EDSG has worked with numerousclients in a variety of industries on their sustainability issues.EDSG has staff in California, Texas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.

Name __________________________________________________________ Company ___________________________________________________________Address ________________________________________________________ City ________________________________________________________________State __________________________________________________________ Postal Code __________________ Telephone _______________________________Fax ___________________________________________________________ E-mail ______________________________________________________________

Payment InformationAdvance After November 18, 2008�� Member $125 �� Member $150�� Nonmember $150 �� Nonmember $175�� EPA employee (no charge)

(EPA ID required for admittance)

Research Triangle Park Chapter Dinner Specify one selection:�� Dinner $29 �� Chicken Piccata �� Prime Rib of Beef �� Pasta Primavera

Total Payment $ __________

Form of Payment: �� Mastercard �� Visa �� American Express �� Discover �� Check (enclosed) �� Purchase order (enclosed)Credit Card Number _______________________________________________ Expiration Date _______________________________________________________Name (printed) on Card _____________________________________________ Signature ___________________________________________________________

Return registration form to: A&WMA, One Gateway Center, Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222, or fax to: 412-232-3450. For more information, call 412-232-3444 or 1-800-270-3444.

Refund Policy: If written notice of cancellation is received on or before November 25, 2008 payment will be refunded. Substitutions may be made at any time; payment for any difference is due at the timeof substitution. This refund policy applies to all occurrences, including weather-related events and other natural disasters. In the unlikely occurrence of event cancellation, the Association is not liable forany expenses incurred by the registrant other than the full refund of registration fee(s) paid.

Hear the latest research and program news directly from EPA! Topics will include:

• Mercury rulemaking update, monitoring, control technology research, and modeling• Fine PM and health effects• PM implementation, PM NAAQS, and PM research• Biodiesel emissions• Cement kiln standards• Global climate change

Registration for the two-day meeting is only $125 for A&WMA members and $150 fornonmembers who pre-register. These discounted prices will increase by $25 afterNovember 18, 2008 – so act now!

The 33rd Annual A&WMA/EPA Information ExchangeDecember 2-3, 2008 • Research Triangle Park, NC

www.awma.org/go/informationexchange08

Register Today!

December 2, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. • December 3, 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. • The Auditorium, U.S. EPA, RTP Campus • 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC

Joint Meeting of the Research Triangle Park ChapterDecember 2, 2008 • 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

All attendees of the Information Exchange are invited to attend the Research TrianglePark Chapter Dinner Meeting.

6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Cash bar7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Dinner8:00 - 9:00 p.m. Speaker TBD

Cost: $29

Please visit www.awma.org/go/informationexchange08 for more information!

My story begins in late June, while visiting family in thegreater Los Angeles area following A&WMA’s 2008 AnnualConference & Exhibition in Portland, OR. My brother andI took off for the Getty Center that Friday morning for abit of art, architecture, and inspiration in a Los Angelesmountaintop setting. I left my notebook computer tocharge its battery. After returning from our outing, I decided to check my e-mail and upload dozens of photostaken that day for safekeeping. I powered on the com-puter and it began to boot up… then it emitted a ghastlyelectronic scream as it shut down, not to be brought to lifeby any normal means. Thus, my nightmare began.

IT Support: Not Always There When You Need ItAs the owner of a small business with limited IT support,I had purchased an extended computer warranty. After returning home to Houston, I took the computer in forwarranty service. At least three technicians verified at dif-ferent times that the computer did not power on. Theypromised to call me within 24 hours, and offered me aloaner computer if they could not diagnose the problemquickly. Since this was my primary business computer, Icould afford to wait only a day or two before retrievingdata stored on the hard drive.

The Suspense Builds…The wait began. The service department did not call aspromised. With no ETD (estimated time for diagnosis), Ichecked out my computer to recover the data. Since thecomputer did not power on, this was a challenge, but oneI could take on. As a kid I was curious about how thingswork and have moderate mechanical skills—all I neededwas a steady hand, a small screwdriver, and a few uninter-rupted minutes, right?

Definitely Not for the Faint of HeartThe user guide provided with every computer is valuablein pointing out the location and purpose of every conceivable part that a computer user should need. If youmisplace it, you can easily download a user guide from themanufacturer’s Web site. Then again, the user guide doesnot show how to disassemble a computer, upgrade it, orreplace parts without causing damage and/or voiding thewarranty. This requires a more elusive, model-specificmaintenance and repair manual, or technical manual. Youcan find a technical manual with a good Internet searchengine and a bit of patience. The technical manual provides clear, easy-to-follow, step-by-step instructions forcomputer technicians.

As with many subcompact computers, the hard drivesits in the middle of the computer, and is difficult to access. Armed with illustrations and a small screwdriver, Isafely removed the hard drive, ready to put it into an external housing to access the data… but the housing hadconnections for an older technology … Agghhh! A trip toan electronic parts store yielded a USB-powered enclosurecompatible with my 18-month-old notebook drive. Back atthe office, 30 minutes and a few dollars later, I attachedthe (now external) notebook drive to another computer,and… not so fast! Agghhh!

The Suspense Is Killing Me!Most offices use network storage, tape drives, externalhard drives, online storage, or a combination of these.Each of these options provides adequate capacity to backup an entire notebook computer. In general, backing upan entire computer is neither recommended nor required.As a computer gets older, it accumulates a lot of instructionsand programs that slow it down, though periodic housecleaning can help improve performance. Also, backing upall data can cause unintended risks (See E-Discovery RulesReach Beyond Litigation; EM August 2007, 24–25). Finally,backing up a high-capacity hard drive takes a lot of time,

emc o l u m n

NIGHTMARE on Elm StreetIT Insight by Jill Barson Gilbert

Jill Barson Gilbert, QEP, is a governance, risk, and compliance software thought leader and president of Lexicon Systems, LLC. She applies information systemsand technologies to facilitate well-informed, strategically-aligned decisions. Reliable knowledge enhances enterpriseagility via improved compliance, risk management, business performance, and sustainability. E-mail: [email protected].


much of it wasted if you take the first and second points toheart. What should you back up to protect from futuredata losses and downtime?

Let’s assume that your organization has the software in-stallation files for the programs installed on your machine.If so, then trim data backups to critical information thatyou could not otherwise replace, for example:

• documents, spreadsheets, and small databases—your“work” or project files;

• any special templates you use frequently; and • e-mail, if not backed up on a server or online—

remember the consequences of saving everything.

Gooey, Not IckyOnce I reassembled my notebook and returned it for service,I received a loaner computer loaded with Microsoft Office2007 and Windows Vista. But my computer had Office2003 and Windows XP—I was waiting for the first VistaService Pack (issued just about the time this story began)before upgrading my own machine… Agghhh!

I found Vista Service Pack 1 and Microsoft Office 2007pretty easy to learn. Occasionally, I had to use the Helpfiles to find my way. I like Vista’s new graphical user interface(GUI, pronounced “gooey”) and find it runs well on 2 MBof RAM; 3 would be even better. While Vista has its critics,it is said to be more secure than Windows XP. With the latestService Pack, Office 2007 works like a dream. It offers a selection of templates, formats, and designs to make workeasier. You can save your work in a format compatible withOffice 2003, which much of the world still uses.

On June 30, 2008, Microsoftstopped selling Windows XP.Many organizations will leapfrogfrom Windows XP to the next op-erating system after Vista. This

will let them phase in hardware and memory upgradesneeded for the newer operating systems. Some organizationsopt to run Office 2007 on XP while gearing up for the nextoperating system.

EpilogueAfter three weeks in the shop, my notebook computermysteriously powered on and came to life, so I brought ithome. This nightmare taught me to use a more reliabledata backup utility and to check backups often, that Web-based e-mail can cure a host of evils, and that learning new operating systems and software can be pleasant, notghoulish. To this date, the freakish problem with my note-book never has been diagnosed… some mysteries cannotbe explained. em

Agghhh!Agghhh!



eme p a r e s e a r c h h i g h l i g h t s Ongoing research and other activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national laboratories

research, development, and demon-stration projects to fill the identifiedresearch gaps. Research projects fallinto four main areas, as describedbelow.

1. Condition Assessment. To assessthe condition of a drinking water distribution or wastewater collectionsystem, data and information aregathered through observation, directinspection, investigation, and indirectmonitoring and reporting. An analysisof the data and information helps determine the structural, operational,and performance status of capital infrastructure assets. Condition assess-ment also includes structural failureanalysis to determine the causes anddevelop ways to prevent future break-downs. Research results will enhancethe ability of utilities to make techni-cally sound judgments regarding assetmanagement.

2. System Rehabilitation. System re-habilitation is the application of infrastructure repair, renewal, and replacement technologies to reinstatefunctionality in a drinking water orwastewater system. The proper balanceof the repair, renewal, and replace-ment depends on the results of condition assessment, evaluation ofvarious rehabilitation options, andlife-cycle cost-benefit analysis.

3. Advanced Concepts. To addresslong-term infrastructure needs, ad-vanced scientific and engineeringconcepts will be developed, leading toinnovative infrastructure designs, man-agement procedures, and operationalapproaches. The infusion of these advanced concepts into an establishedsystem is especially challenging. Forexample, the innovative concept couldbe part of a retrofit solution, but com-patibility with the in-place system iscritical. Advanced concepts go be-yond asset management to includemaximizing the benefits from low-impact development, water reuse,source water protection, and inte-grated watershed management.

4. Innovative Treatment Technologiesfor Wastewater and Water Reuse.

EPA Studies Aging WaterInfrastructureThe nation’s water infrastructure hasthe capacity to treat, store, and trans-port trillions of gallons of water andwastewater each day through millionsof miles of pipelines. However, someinfrastructure components are morethan 100 years old, and as the infra-structure deteriorates, there are in-creasing concerns about the ability ofthis infrastructure to keep up with future needs. As part of an effort toaddress these concerns, EPA has initiated a new water infrastructure research program. The aging waterinfrastructure (AWI) program, man-aged by the National Risk Manage-ment Research Laboratory, will focuson providing the scientific and engi-neering tools to more efficiently as-sess and rehabilitate existing systemsand provide new, more cost-effectiveinfrastructure options.

2003, Baltimore reported 1190 watermain breaks (averaging more thanthree per day). The estimated waterlost from water distribution systems is1.7 trillion gallons per year at an an-nual cost of US$2.6 billion. Further, in-creased self-reported rates of diarrheaduring low water-pressure events (in-cluding water main breaks) tie poten-tial human health risks to suchinfrastructure failures (see P.R.Hunter et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases2005, 40, e32–e34).

In the area of wastewater collectionsystems, an estimated 75,000 sanitarysewer overflows occur each year in theUnited States, resulting in the dischargeof up to 10 billion gallons of untreatedwastewater into receiving waters. Upto 3700 illnesses annually are estimatedto be due to exposure to recreationalwater contaminated by sanitary seweroverflows. Specific past events includethe 1989 sanitary sewer overflows in

Demonstrated NeedsThe need for renewed focus on drink-ing water distribution infrastructure isillustrated by a number of dramaticstatistics. There are more than 1 millionmiles of drinking water mains in theUnited States. There are already anestimated 240,000 water main breaksper year, and this number is likely toincrease substantially as many systemcomponents reach the end of theirservice lives in the next 30 years. Forexample, at one large utility in theMidwest, pipe breaks increased from250 to 2200 per year over 19 years. In

Cabool, MO, where sewage-contami-nated drinking water distributionlines caused 243 cases of diarrhea and4 deaths, and the 1993 discharge of untreated sewage in Ocoee, FL, resulting in 39 cases of hepatitis A.

Developing SolutionsEPA’s AWI research program hasidentified the critical research needsrelated to aging drinking water andwastewater infrastructure and theagency is working with collaboratorsand stakeholders to conduct technology

There are more than 1 million miles of drinking water mains in the United States.

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!


These technologies address the dynamic requirements for improvedwater quality and the growing demandfor safe and reliable reclaimed waste-water and stormwater. For example,wet-weather flows at wastewater treat-ment plants must be managed moreeffectively to reduce pathogen levels.And there are new challenges relatingto the capability of pharmaceuticalsand personal care products to passthrough, interfere with, and even in-hibit, the wastewater treatment process.Controlling nitrogen and phospho-rous is a growing priority, especially inthe basins that drain into the Missis-sippi River, the Great Lakes, and theChesapeake Bay. In Florida, California,and the arid Southwest, the use of re-claimed wastewater and stormwater israpidly increasing. There is acceler-ated demand for wastewater treat-ment technologies to be more energyefficient and to produce smaller vol-umes of residuals to manage.

Projects under the AWI researchprogram include technology demon-strations; state-of-the-technologyassessments; applied research; field

applications; basic research; and bench-scale, pilot-scale, and controlled-condi-tion testing. The projects will focus on

• optimizing repair, rehabilitation,and replacement;

• extending the service life of in-stalled drinking water and waste-water system components;

• reducing system failures and theiradverse effects on public healthand the environment;

• reducing sewer overflows andbackups;

• evaluating the performance andcost of innovative technologiesand approaches;

• investigating advanced system de-sign and management concepts;

• detecting, locating, and charac-terizing leaks in drinking waterdistribution and wastewater col-lection systems;

• designing systems with a green in-frastructure and low-impact devel-opment components to attenuatewastewater flows; and

• reducing high-risk water mainand force main breaks.

Planned OutcomesIn the near term, the AWI researchprogram will generate technology reports on condition assessment (in-spection technologies), rehabilitation(service laterals, liners), and advancedsystem designs. In the long term,guidance documents will be devel-oped on asset management, real-time monitoring, new materials, verifica-tion and demonstration of innovativetechnologies, and sustainable man-agement and design approaches. Formore information, visit the AWI Website at www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/awi.

AWI research activities are led by Daniel J. Murray, Jr., P.E., a seniorenvironmental engineer at EPA’s National Risk Management ResearchLaboratory in Cincinnati, OH. em

For more information on the research discussed in thiscolumn, contact Deborah Janes, Public Information Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (B205-01), Office of Research and Development, Research Tri-angle Park, NC 27711; phone: 1-919-541-4577; e-mail:[email protected]. Disclaimer: Although this textwas reviewed by EPA staff and approved for publica-tion, it does not necessarily reflect official EPA policy.


Compiled by Mark WilliamsThe Bureau of National Affairs Inc.

Next president to get narrow windowon emissions caps, senator says: Thenext U.S. president will have his bestchance at getting a comprehensive climate change bill passed in 2009while he still enjoys a post-inaugurationhoneymoon period and before Con-gress inevitably turns its attention tothe next election cycle in 2010, theSenate’s assistant majority leader said.“A president’s most effective year ishis first. He is brand new to the office,has a national mandate of varying degrees, and Congress is usually moreopen to working with him. After thatfirst year, an election is under way andpeople look at him differently,” saidSen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) at a con-ference held by the NDN, formerlythe New Democrat Network politicaladvocacy group. He noted that boththe presumptive Republican andDemocratic presidential nominees,Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen.Barack Obama (D-Ill.), support legis-lation that would cap U.S. greenhousegas (GHG) emissions through an emis-sions trading system. In response to aquestion on the climate issue follow-ing his speech, Durbin said grapplingwith the climate change issue will beas much a challenge as getting legis-lation passed on other top issues thathave long eluded Congress and pastpresidents, such as comprehensivehealth care reform. “But we can’twait,” Durbin said, given dire projec-tions of rapidly increasing global tem-peratures in the coming decades. “Icertainly hope Sens. Obama and McCain will decide this will be a prior-ity in the first year of their administra-tion to deal with this global warming[issue],” Durbin said. Addressing climate change “is a huge undertak-ing.” he said.

Public investment in brownfields hasstrong leveraging impact, report says:Each dollar of public investment in brownfields leverages US$8.00 fromother sources, and every acre of rede-veloped brownfields conserves approx-imately 4.5 acres of undeveloped land,according to a draft report by theNortheast-Midwest Institute. Congressis likely to consider legislation in its

next session that would increase the authorized funding for the brown-fields program and create a new taxcredit for spending on brownfields redevelopment, and the draft reportanalyzes the impacts of both types ofsubsidy. The report, The Environmentaland Economic Impacts of Brownfields Re-development, prepared by Evans Paull,a senior policy analyst with Northeast-Midwest Institute, was funded by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency,and reviews several years of literatureand reports on brownfields redevel-opment. Enough data and informationon brownfields is now available thatanalysts “are now in a position to quan-tify additional investments in brown-fields,” Paull said. Data are insufficientto draw precise conclusions, but“clearly most sites, possibly as much as80%, require some level of public sub-sidy in order to proceed to successfulredevelopment.” While progress hasbeen made, the report said, “the cur-rent pace is addressing, at best, 1.4%of the inventory annually. Furtheradding to the daunting task is the factthat an unknown number of new sitesare added to the inventory each timea manufacturing plant, gas station, ordry cleaning establishment is closedand becomes a vacant site.”

Report says computer models accuratefor understanding climate change:Computer models used to analyze climate trends and the relationshipbetween climate change and GHGemissions from human activity are effective and accurate, even as scientistscontinue to improve them, accordingto a federal study by the U.S. ClimateChange Science Program. The report,Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengthsand Limitations, compared computermodel forecasts with actual weathertrends in the 20th century. It deter-mined not only that the models areaccurate, but also that temperaturechanges could not be explained ifwarming effects of anthropogenicGHG emissions were ignored, essen-tially confirming the human impacton climate change. The report is oneof 21 synthesis and assessment prod-ucts commissioned by the Climate

Change Science Program, a programcosponsored by 13 federal agenciesthat coordinates and produces researchon climate change. The current reportis the 10th to have been completed.The authors concluded that whilemodeling continues to improve, “thepace [of improvement] has been un-even because several important aspectsof the climate system present especiallysevere challenges to the goal of simula-tion.” Models of the different elementsof climate—such as oceans, precipita-tion, ice masses, and storms—displayedvarying degrees of reliability. The mod-els that analyze the effects of variablessuch as GHGs and volcanic eruptionswere found to be accurate. Models thattook into account the effects of solarenergy, GHGs, and aerosols fromhuman and volcanic activity togetheraccurately matched global tempera-tures for the 20th century. But data onaerosols from human activity were insufficient to determine what effectsthey had on temperatures when analyzedseparately from other factors, the report concluded. David Bader, a scien-tist with the U.S. Department of Energyand a lead author on the report, saidmodels could be improved to provide“more confident information on all aspects of climate change on regionalscales” as opposed to worldwide scales.Future models should be improved toallow for “more accurate representationof small-scale processes,” he said. Baderalso said that “the absence of interac-tive ice sheet models” is a large con-cern. Creating such a model wouldallow for better predictions about thefuture of large ice masses as the climatewarms. em

emw a s h i n g t o n r e p o r t

ADVERTISERS’ INDEX

EM Advertiser (www) Go to page...

Advanced New Source Review

(rtpenv.com) .....................................................20

Ecotech Pty Ltd.

(ecotech.com.au)................................................9

Lakes Environmental Software Inc.

(weblakes.com) ........................................Cover 4


Federal Government Invests in B.C. Renewable Energy ProjectThe Government of Canada is investingin a renewable energy project in BritishColumbia (B.C.) through the ecoEN-ERGY for Renewable Power Program.The South Cranberry Creek PowerProject, approximately 30 kilometerssouth of Revelstoke, will benefit froman investment of up to $3.7 million(Canadian dollars) over 10 years. Thetwo turbines at South Cranberry Creekcan provide 9.35 MW of renewable elec-tricity capacity. The project has quali-fied for the one-cent-per-kilowatt-hourincentive under the ecoENERGY pro-gram, helping to ensure the electricitygenerated can be delivered to con-sumers at competitive rates.

PROVINCIALGreen Standards for B.C. BuildingsStarting in September 2008, everynew building in B.C. is required tomeet progressive standards for energyand water efficiency. New houses,multi-family residential buildingsunder five storeys, and small com-mercial and industrial buildings mustnow achieve an EnerGuide RatingSystem rating of 77. The EnerGuideprogram uses computer software toevaluate the energy efficiency of abuilding and designate a rating num-ber based on the results. New high-rise residential buildings and largercommercial buildings must meet theAmerican Society of Heating, Refrig-eration, and Air-Conditioning Engi-neers 90.1(2004) standard. Thestandard is internationally recognizedand applies to several components ofa building, including the building en-velope; heating, ventilating, and airconditioning systems; water heating;power; and lighting. More info-rmation about the greening the B.C. building code is available atwww.housing.gov.bc.ca/building/green/index.htm. em

Canadian Report is compiled with excerpts fromEcoLog News and the EcoCompliance.ca newslet-ter, both published by EcoLog Information Re-sources Group, a division of BIG InformationProduct LP. For more Canadian environmen-tal information, visit www.ecolog.com or phone +1-888-702-1111, ext. 8.

FEDERALEnvironmental Concerns MakingCoal’s Future UncertainEnvironmental concerns about coalcould limit its development, but it willremain an important component ofCanada’s energy mix, says a briefingnote from the National Energy Board(NEB). Canada’s coal reserves areroughly equivalent to its oil reserves.Coal-fired generation represents morethan 16,200 MW of generation ca-pacity in Canada, or 13% of Canada’stotal. This is down from 16% in 2006.This 13% is not evenly distributedacross the country. Alberta and On-tario are the main producers of coal,while Saskatchewan, Manitoba, NewBrunswick, and Nova Scotia have lim-ited production levels. Coal-fired production does not exist in BritishColumbia, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Yukon, andNorthwest Territories. The NEB ex-pects the use of coal will decline to anestimated 10,000 MW of installed capacity by 2030. To read the NEB’sbriefing note, Coal-Fired Generation: APerspective, go to www.neb.gc.ca.—byJennifer Holloway, EcoLog

80% of Canadians Consider EnvironmentWhen Making Purchasing DecisionsWhile 80% of Canadians consider theenvironmental impact of their pur-chasing decisions, the majority ofconsumers believe that environmentalclaims are often just marketing ploys,according to the most recent editionof Consumerology Report. The reportfound that Canadians consider envi-ronmental issues to be the third mostimportant challenge presently facingthe country, only narrowly behind ris-ing gas prices and the state of thehealth care system, which tied for firstplace. The report is based on a na-tional survey of 1500 Canadians andrevealed that cost is the primary barrier why more Canadians weren’tadopting more environmentallyfriendly practices. The ConsumerologyReport is a quarterly publication, pre-pared by Bensimon Byrne, a privatelyowned Canadian advertising agency.To view the full report, go towww.consumerology.ca.—by JenniferHolloway, EcoLog

emcan ad i an repor t

In Next Month's Issue…

GHG Emissions Inventories and Reporting

A&WMA continues its focus on climate change and related issueswith a look at greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions inventories andreporting, including articles on theNorth American GHG registry,managing GHG reporting, accred-iting GHG verifiers, California’snew mandatory GHG reporting requirements, and voluntary GHGemission reduction projects.

Also look for…PM File Competitive Strategy EPA Research Highlights

…And a Call for Abstracts for A&WMA’s 102nd Annual Conference & Exhibition in Detroit next June


emEPA Sued for Not Regulat-ing GHG Emissions fromRefineriesTwelve states, New York City, and theDistrict of Columbia sued the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA)Aug. 25 for failing to regulate green-house gas (GHG) emissions from petroleum refineries (New York vs.EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 08-1279, 8/25/08).The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit, alleges EPA violated theClean Air Act (CAA) when it declinedto add GHG emissions to the NewSource Performance Standards (NSPS)for petroleum refineries.

“EPA’s refusal to control pollutionfrom oil refineries is the latest exampleof the Bush Administration’s do-noth-ing policy on global warming,” NewYork Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,who led the lawsuit, said in a state-ment. “Oil refineries contribute sub-stantially to global warming, posinggrave threats to New York’s environ-ment, health, and economy. As longas the Bush EPA continues its blatantviolation of the [CAA] and its shame-ful refusal to control global warmingpollution, I will continue to fight themaggressively on all fronts.”

New York was joined in its lawsuitby California, Connecticut, Delaware,Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp-shire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, aswell as the District of Columbia andthe City of New York.

“Time and taxpayer dollars will bebetter spent encouraging the Demo-cratic-led Congress to take action onsound, responsible environmentallegislation than by introducing newlawsuits,” EPA spokesman Tim Lyonssaid in a statement.

NSPS are technology-based emis-sions limits issued for different indus-trial sectors and applied when a newplant is built or an existing plant is re-constructed. The standards for refiner-ies are at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart J.

EPA Considers GHG RuleEPA declined to regulate GHG emis-sions from refineries when it issuedthe final NSPS in June, saying a pend-ing rulemaking would address whether

GHG emissions from refineries andother stationary sources should beregulated. According to EPA, the CAAdoes not require it to review air pol-lutants not covered under previousversions of the NSPS for refineries.

EPA published an advance noticeof proposed rulemaking on the possi-bility of regulating GHG emissionsJuly 30, and it is accepting public com-ment until Nov. 27. EPA is asking forcomment on the advantages and dis-advantages of regulating emissionsunder various sections of the CAAand how a decision to regulate emis-sions under one section of the actcould trigger regulation of thoseemissions under other sections.

In April 2007, the U.S. SupremeCourt ruled that carbon dioxide andother GHGs are air pollutants as de-fined by the CAA and said the agencymust regulate GHGs or explain why itis not doing so (Massachusetts vs. EPA,127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)).

EPA published the final NSPS rulefor petroleum refineries in June toregulate nitrogen oxides, particulatematter, and sulfur dioxide emissions.EPA estimates the updated standardswill reduce particulate matter, carbonmonoxide, sulfur oxide, and nitrogenoxides emissions from 30 refineries by nearly 31,000 tons annually.—by Andrew Childers, BNA

White House, CongressmenOffer Alternatives to CAIRThe White House and Democrats onthe House Energy and CommerceCommittee are circulating separatedraft proposals to codify the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)—either inwhole or in part—in response to afederal court decision that threw outa major EPA regulation to curb airpollution in the eastern United States.

The draft legislative language of-fered by the House Democrats wouldsimply extend a portion of CAIR requiring the first phase of emissionsreductions to begin in 2009, whichwould give Congress time to draftcomprehensive legislation to addressthe court ruling. The White Houseapproach would enact CAIR in its entirety, effectively writing into lawthe rule that was vacated by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit. Copies of thedraft legislation were provided toBNA Aug. 22.

CAIR, issued at 40 C.F.R. Parts 51–52, would have used an emissionstrading scheme to curb ozone and fineparticle pollution from power plantsin upwind states to help downwindstates attain EPA air quality standards.The rule would have required 28states and the District of Columbia torevise their state implementationplans to reduce emissions of sulfurdioxide and nitrogen oxides, whichare precursors of particulate matterand ozone, respectively. Nitrogenoxide reductions were scheduled tobegin in 2009, with sulfur dioxide re-ductions to follow in 2010; secondaryreductions for each were slated for2015.

The rule was challenged by NorthCarolina, which advocated stricterprotections for downwind states, aswell as several energy companies thatdisputed EPA’s authority to set newemissions caps under the provisionsof CAIR. The D.C. Circuit July 11struck down the agency’s method forallocating emissions allowances forupwind states and its interpretation ofprotections for downwind states, lead-ing the court to vacate the entire rule(North Carolina vs. EPA D.C. Cir., No.05-1244, 7/11/08).

EPA has not yet decided how it willrespond to the decision, spokesmanTim Lyons told BNA Aug. 22. How-ever, the agency did receive an exten-sion of the deadline to file an appealfrom the court to Sept. 24.

House Looks at Temporary FixThe draft language offered by theHouse Energy and Commerce Com-mittee Democrats would codify thefirst phase of CAIR, which would havetaken effect in 2009, carrying the requirements through either 2011 or2012 while Congress can address alonger-term response. The cutoff datehas not been finalized while the draftis being circulated for commentamong industry and environmentalgroups. That intermediate approachis favored by both Committee Chair-man John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep.

n e w s f o c u s


Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Energy and AirQuality, according to committee staff.

The committee’s proffered lan-guage would omit Minnesota fromthe CAIR requirements after thatstate successfully sued to be removedfrom the rule and would also bar EPAfrom following through on a proposalto redefine when New Source Review(NSR) provisions of the CAA apply atpower plants. Under NSR, powerplants and other industrial facilitiesmust install modern pollution con-trols when they make modificationsthat increase emissions.

Since 1980, EPA regulations havedefined emissions increase as an in-crease in a plant’s actual emissionsmeasured on an annual basis. How-ever, the agency is trying to narrowthe definition, which would restrictthe circumstances under which NSRapplies at power plants.

The Senate Environment and Pub-lic Works committee held a publichearing on the CAIR decision July 29,where most members favored a leg-islative fix to deficiencies in the ruleraised by the court. Brian McLean, di-rector of EPA’s Office of AtmosphericPrograms, also told the committee hewould favor a legislative solution toCAIR rather than another rulemak-ing that could be challenged in court.

The Environment and Public WorksCommittee has not yet offered anylegislation in response to the decision,a spokesman said. Sen. Tom Carper(D-Del.) has used the CAIR decisionto push his long-stalled Clean AirPlanning Act, which would stipulateeven deeper emissions cuts, includingnew limits on mercury, but his staffsaid he would be “open” to supportingthe House language for a two-year fix.

White House Would Adopt Whole RuleThe draft legislation being circulatedby the White House Council on Envi-ronmental Quality (CEQ) would adoptCAIR wholesale rather than simplycodifying the first phase. “This is onedraft option being explored,” CEQspokeswoman Kristen Hellmer said ina statement. “We are looking at bothlegal and legislative options that willimmediately and fully restore the

rule—-any delay or half measures willcome at a significant cost to publichealth, the environment, economicdevelopment, and good jobs.”

But environmental groups say thedraft legislation presented to them byCEQ Chairman James Connaughtonduring a recent telephone confer-ence call would prevent EPA from fur-ther strengthening CAIR until allcourt challenges and appeals havebeen resolved. The language would“handcuff a future administration,”Natural Resources Defense CouncilClean Air Program Director JohnWalke told BNA.

Though she has not thoroughlyread through the Energy and Com-merce Committee language, AmyRoyden-Bloom, senior staff associatewith the National Association of CleanAir Agencies, told BNA the short-termapproach is generally favored by theassociation. The group also has con-cerns about the language circulatedby the White House, Royden-Bloomsaid, because it fails to address manyof the concerns raised by the judgeswho overturned CAIR. “We’re not infavor of this language,” she said,adding that there are “problems withthis approach.”

Desire to Move QuicklyEdison Electric Institute spokesmanDan Riedinger told BNA the powertrade group was still discussing bothproposals, but the industry hopesCongress and EPA can reach a quickresolution. “There’s a common desireto move relatively quickly,” he said.

Though CAIR was largely supportedby both industry and environmentalwatchdogs, Walke said the court deci-sion opens the door to pushing fordeeper emissions reductions in futureyears. “We believed it was the bestwe’d get out of the Bush administra-tion, but the status quo has changed,”Walke said.

The draft legislative language codifying CAIR circulated by theWhite House is available at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/DraftLanguage.pdf.

The draft legislative language partially codifying CAIR circulated by House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats is available at

http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/Draft-CAIR.pdf.—by Andrew Childers, BNA

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

BUSINESS BRIEFS

The Babcock & Wilcox Co., Lynchburg, VA,has acquired Delta Power Services (DPS)LLC, Houston, TX, from Olympus HoldingsLLC, Morristown, NJ. DPS, the fourth largestoperations and maintenance servicesprovider for the U.S. power generation in-dustry, will operate as a subsidiary of Bab-cock & Wilcox Power Generation Group Inc.,but will continue to use its name and asso-ciated brand. Financial terms of the acqui-sition were not disclosed.

Fuel Tech Inc., Warrenville, IL, has signed afive-year license agreement with EnergyMarine Services (EMS), S.A. de C.V., LaPaz, Mexico. Under the agreement, EMS hasbeen granted an exclusive license to useFuel Tech’s Targeted In-Furnace Injectiontechnology to provide emissions reductionsfor its customers in Mexico. Financial termsof the agreement were not disclosed.

Trinity Consultants Inc., Dallas, TX, hasmerged with Environmental Services Inc.,Albuquerque, NM. The merger allows envi-ronmental consulting firm Trinity to enhanceits presence in New Mexico. Financial termsof the merger were not disclosed.

Weston Solutions Inc., San Antonio, TX,has been selected by the U.S. Air ForceReserve Command to receive a US$97.5million operations and maintenance contract.Under the contract, Weston will provide arange of construction and engineering ac-tivities supporting sustainment, restoration,and modernization of real property on re-serve installations and tenant locationsthroughout the United States. Weston isone of six contractors selected for contractthat has a one-year base and four optionyears. Financial terms of the contract werenot disclosed.

Indigo Technologies LLC, Pittsburgh, PA,and FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA, have en-tered into an agreement to jointly optimizeand commercialize the Indigo MAPSystem,multipollutant control technology for cleancoal combustion. Financial terms of theagreement were not disclosed.


ema s s o c i a t i o n n e w s

2007-2008 Student Chapter Award Winners

2008 Environmental Challenge International (ECi)Competition WinnersThe ECi is a team competition in which students from alllevels—including undergraduates, master’s, and Ph.D.candidates—presented a solution to an environmentalchallenge based on the experiences of A&WMA members.In responding to the challenge, entrants considered regulatory approaches, political and community issues, aswell as technical and scientific solutions. The First AnnualECi Competition instituted by Steve Rybolt, the StudentProgram Committee Chair for A&WMA’s 101st AnnualConference & Exhibition in Portland, OR, proved to be atremendous success.

1st PlaceHuxley College (US$6000)Team Name: Huxley Energy ConsultingTeam Members: Jason Boyd, Eleanor Hines, Melody Feden, and Mac Dolstad

2nd PlaceMichigan State University (US$4500)Team Name: EcoEnergy Design, LLCTeam Members: Michael Collins, Rebecca Hullman, Brandon Knight, Lauren Olson, and Tan Zhao

3rd PlaceUniversity of Miami, Ohio (US$3000)Team Name: Team MiamiTeam Members: Ann-Drea Hensley, Alicia Glover, and Na Qin

Honorable MentionUniversity of Montana (US$1500)Team Name: New Clear ConsultingTeam Members: Megan Bergauff, Raj Kailasam, William Pinson, and Jessica Wood

A&WMA’s Student Chapter Awards recognize outstanding achievement by a student chapter. The 2007–2008 winners wereannounced at the Honors & Awards Luncheon held during the 101st Annual Conference & Exhibition in Portland, OR.

First Place:University of FloridaFaculty Advisor: Dr. Chang-Yu WuAccepting the award for the University of Florida were Yu-Mei Hsu and Dr. Chang-Yu Wu.

Second Place:University of CincinnatiFaculty Advisor: Dr. Tim KeenerAccepting the award for the University of Cincinnati were Ming Chai and Rachel Agnew.

Third Place (Tie):Michigan State UniversityFaculty Advisor: Mackenzie Davis(Not Pictured)North Carolina State UniversityFaculty Advisor: Dr. H. Christopher FreyAccepting the award for North Carolina StateUniversity was Po-Yao Kuo.


2008 Student Paper/Poster Contest WinnersA&WMA congratulates the winners of the Student Paper/Poster Contest held during the 101st Annual Conference &Exhibition in Portland, OR.

UndergraduateA: 1st Place (US$800)Quoc-Hung Phan, University of California, Riverside, Power PlantNitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control Using Bacterial Denitrification

B: 2nd Place (US$600)Emily Weiler, University of Montana, Indoor Levels of PM2.5 Duringthe Missoula Wildfire Season and Winter Temperature Inversions

C: 3rd Place (US$400)Ann Albrecht, James Madison University, Verification of the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s PM2.5 Forecast for theShenandoah Valley

Master’sD: 1st Place (US$1100)Abhishek Bhat, University of Toledo, Development and Evaluationof a Screening Type Dispersion Model for Bioaerosols Emissionsfrom Land Application of Class B Biosolids

E: 2nd Place (US$900)Vidyasagar Sunkavalli, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, EquilibriumAdsorption and Hysteresis Effect of Water Vapor onto a Series ofActivated Carbon Adsorbents

F: 3rd Place (US$600)Amrutha Sakaray, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Manufactureand Characterization of Mesquite Wood Derived Activated Carbonfor Air Quality Control Applications

DoctoralG: 1st Place (US$1800)Sudeep Popat, University of California, Riverside, Green Technologyfor Removal of Siloxanes from Biogas

H: 2nd Place (US$1400)Ashraf Aly Hassan, University of Cincinnati, Hydrophobic VOCs inTrickle-Bed Air Biofilter Treatment: Bacteria or Fungi?

I: 3rd Place (US$900)Kristina Wagstrom, Carnegie Mellon University, Impact of LargeSource Regions on Particulate Matter Concentrations in the EasternUnited States

SustainabilityJ: 1st Place (US$800)Chirjiv Anand, University of Toledo, Sustainability Indicators forRoad Construction

K: 2nd Place (US$600)Sudeep Popat, University of California, Riverside, Green Technologyfor Removal of Siloxanes from Biogas

L: 3rd Place (US$400)Varadharajan Kailasam, University of Montana, Arsenic & SeleniumRecovery from Aqueous Systems Using Nano-Porous SilicaPolyamine Composites


AbstractGreenhouse gases have a very negative effect on our environment. They areblamed for the main cause of global warming. Just a couple of problemsfrom global warming are higher sea levels and changes in weather, whichcan be disastrous in themselves. Fortunately, there are things that can bedone to reduce the amount emitted. Very simple things can be done at hometo conserve energy, which is one of the best ways to fight greenhouse gasemission. Also, things can be done on a large-scale level. Global warming related to greenhouse gases is a very serious problem and one that needsto be solved as soon as possible.

Greenhouse gases can have a devastating effect on the environment.Greenhouse gases lower the amount of heat that is lost in the air, so

they actually increase the temperature of the atmosphere. They allow lightfrom the sun, which turns into heat, to penetrate the area above the earth,but then they block the heat from escaping as it reflects back. Global warm-ing has been blamed by many people for the cause of the melting glaciers,which would cause the sea levels to rise. A rise in sea level would be responsible for much flooding in many parts of the world. Also becausegreenhouse gases can change the temperatures, weather patterns can bedisrupted. Since climate is the average weather over a long period of time,a change in weather would cause a change in climate. Greenhouse gasescan change what land is used for. If there was an area with a cool climateand greenhouse gases made the temperatures rise, then that area maywarm up and become suitable for farming. This may seem good but thinkabout the areas that are suitable for farming now. Those areas could heat upand it could become too hot to grow crops.

Greenhouse gases are so large a problem that they have caused socialdifficulties. Gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and ground level ozoneare really causing problems for us and the environment. They can cause anincrease in health problems by heating up the areas closer to the poles. Thisallows disease carrying insects to spread and ultimately spread their disease. Then there is the problem of the earth being overall hotter. Highertemperatures could lead to an increase in heat stroke and health problemswith asthma. The rising sea levels would drive people from their homes andcrowd already overpopulated areas.

The solution to this major problem can be difficult in some aspects andsimple in others. The best way to solve it, or at least slow down this problem,is to conserve energy. By doing this we reduce the demand for energy frompower plants. 40% of the United States, total carbon dioxide emissions, 59%of the total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution, and 18% of the total U.S. nitrogenoxide pollution comes from coal-fired plants alone. Being energy efficientcan be easily achieved at home. The easiest way to start is to turn off thelights when you leave a room and by using fluorescent bulbs, which use a

small portion of what incandescent bulbs use. Also you can recycle your trash, which is almost 100% recyclable. When

you recycle it only takes a fraction of the energy to produce new productscompared to taking it from natural substance. For aluminum it’s only 5%, forsteel only 25%, and for paper only 30%. That’s a lot of energy saved plus recycling is not that hard to do. All you have to do is collect the items and takethem to a collection center. In addition to recycling aluminum, steel, and paper,you can actually recycle oil. Recycling oil not only protects the environmentfrom pollution, but it saves our precious nonrenewable resources too.

Other things that can be done at home to conserve energy relate to thethermostat. By turning up the temperature a few degrees in the summer andby turning it down in the winter, you save a bunch of energy. This will alsohelp you by reducing your electric bill, which is a great advantage. That extramoney could actually be used to insulate your house to reduce heat loss, toinstall storm doors and windows which keep cool air from escaping, or to buyrecycled products. By increasing the demand for recycled products the fac-tories may produce more of them. If you want to take being energy efficientto the next level you can invest in a hybrid car. They are a great decrease ingreenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional cars. Hybrid cars willalso save you a good deal of money because you won’t be buying as muchgas to run the car.

Then there’s being energy efficient on a large scale level such as factories.If we don’t fulfill our part of conservation, it is important that factories do.They could find alternative fuel to use such as ethanol and hydrogen. Thesefuel sources don’t pollute the environment like our current oil-based fueldoes. Also we have to make sure that factories are as modern and clean asthey can be. Modern factories are more efficient and produce less green-house gases. The newer factories have many regulations on them concerningemissions which come from the government.

So as you can see there are a lot of parts to conservation, which I believe isthe most effective way to combat global warming caused by greenhouse gases.Conservation can usually be simple and cheap, and sometimes it can even bebeneficial financially. If everyone took the steps to become energy efficient, thenthe warming of the Earth may not be as big of a problem as it is now. Therewould be less of a chance of disease and other struggles plaguing the popula-tion for generations to come. Life would be all around better for everyone.

BibliographyArms, Karen. Environmental Science. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2000.Baird, Barbara . “Don’t Move...Improve!” Carolina Country 1 May 2008: 14-15.Hopwood, Nick, and Jordan Cohen. “Greenhouse Gases and Society.” University of Michigan. University of Michigan. 1 May 2008 <http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm>. Sierra Club. 1 May 2008 <http://www.sierraclub.com/>.Talyor, Jennifer. “Where Does Your Power Come From?” Carolina Country 1 May 2008: 7+.

A&WMA has begun its second century with a special focuson climate change and greenhouse gas management. Toencourage young people to consider careers in scienceand engineering, where they can have a positive impacton this and other important environmental issues,A&WMA invited high school students to submit essays forits annual award. This year’s winner, William Gilmore, answered that call with a well-designed essay, thanks to histeacher, Mrs. Heather Johnson of Midway High School inDunn, NC. William won US$400 for his efforts. The winning essay is reproduced below. William Gilmore is pictured with his teacher Mrs. Johnson.

2008 High School Essay Contest Winner

Greenhouse Gas Management Actions: What Can Students Do?

ema s s o c i a t i o n n e w s


A&WMA takes pride in supporting the future environ-mental leaders of our world in research, teaching, engi-neering, and environmental practice. For more than adecade, the Association has awarded 108 scholarships totaling US$383,750 to the most promising environmentalstudents. This year, A&WMA is pleased to add US$40,000to the above total by recognizing the following nine students chosen by the Scholarship Awards Committee.

Full-time graduate students who are pursuing courses ofstudy and research leading to careers in air quality, wastemanagement, environmental management, and/or sus-tainability can find the scholarship application for the2009–2010 academic year by visiting A&WMA’s Web site atwww.awma.org/education. Scholarship applications mustbe received by December 1, 2008. Awards will be announcedin January 2009.

In recognition of excellence in air quality research and study:

A: Ashraf Aly Hassan, Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, University ofCincinnatiUS$7500 and the Milton Feldstein Memorial Scholarship

B: Diana Hun, Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at AustinUS$7500

C: John Atkinson, Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, University of IllinoisUS$7500

D: Donee Alexander, Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, University ofWashingtonUS$2500

E: Roja Haritha Gangupomu, Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, TexasA&M University, KingsvilleUS$2500

F: Vladimir Vukovic, Ph.D., Architectural Engineering, Penn State UniversityUS$2500

In recognition of excellence in waste management research and study:

G: Anthony Smith, Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, University of Texasat AustinUS$5000 and the Jacqueline Shields Memorial Scholarship

In recognition of excellence in environmental management/policy researchand study:

H: Yevgen Nazarenko, Ph.D., Environmental Science, Rutgers UniversityUS$2500

In recognition of excellence in sustainability research and study:

I: Jill Baumgartner, Ph.D., Environment & Resources, University of Wisconsin, MadisonUS$2500

If you are interested in making a donation to the A&WMA Scholarship Endowment Trust Fund please visit www.awma.org/education to downloada Scholarship Donation Brochure, or contact A&WMA Member Services at 1-800-270-3444. Contributions are tax deductible.

2008-2009 Scholarship Award Winners

MEMBERS ON THE MOVEA&WMA member George Schewe, CCM, QEP, has joined Trinity Consultants Inc. With more than30 years of experience in air quality consulting, Schewe is an expert in environmental assessments associated with air pollution emissions from industrial and mobile emissions. In addition, he hastaught several courses on air quality modeling and meteorology for the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency’s Air Pollution Training Institute and as an adjunct professor at the University ofCincinnati. He was recently selected to chair A&WMA’s AB-3 Meteorology Committee.


Call for Abstractsfor the Air & Waste Management Association’s102nd ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

The Air & Waste Management Association’s (A&WMA) 102nd Annual Conference & Exhibition will be held in Detroit, MI,June 16-19, 2009. On behalf of A&WMA, we are pleased to invite abstracts of original work on any environmental issue,including those related to the listed focus and principal areas. The abstracts will be evaluated for:• Technical quality• Relevance and significance to current environmental issues• Lack of commercialism

The theme for the conference is “Driving Environmental Progress,” while the topic for the 2009 Critical Review will be“The Earth’s Environment from Space – Informing Environmental Policy.” Papers that are related to the conferencetheme or the Critical Review topic are particularly welcome.

The schedule for the development of the 2009 technical program is shown to the left.

ABSTRACTS MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 5, 2008.

An extended abstract or full manuscript will be required for each accepted abstract. Draft documents are due March 13, 2009, with final versions due April 10, 2009.

Abstracts may be submitted by filling out the abstract submittal form online at www.awma.org/ACE2009.

Please select from the focus and principal area list provided on the following pages when submitting your abstract on-line. Abstracts may be submitted to either a general focus area, usually associated with a Technical Coordinating Com-mittee (TCC) in Technical Council, or to a specific principal area (a subtopic). Some focus areas may have similarprincipal areas, so review the entire listing before deciding where to submit an abstract. If a chair of a specific area orTCC has invited you to participate, please be sure you have the correct focus area and check the box to indicate that thepaper was solicited. When submitting your abstract, please make sure that your contact information is correct.

Paper and poster submissions will be treated identically with respect to submittal and review. They differ only in themethod of delivery at the conference - a paper presentation is given orally, while a poster presentation is a visual display. Please note the requirement to submit either an extended abstract or full manuscript (choice to be made by thesubmitter) for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings. Authors who do not show up at the conference to presenttheir paper or poster risk having their manuscripts removed from the Conference Proceedings.

Authors will be notified of the preliminary acceptance of their abstract by February 13, 2009. For inclusion in the AnnualConference Technical Program, a complete draft manuscript or extended abstract (3-5 pages) must be received by March13, 2009, and reviewed and revised by the final deadline of April 10, 2009. The final acceptance for the conference is based upon the final manuscript/extended abstract. The manuscript/extended abstract must adhere tothe style guides, which will be available online at www.awma.org/ACE2009.

This year there will be awards for student posters and young professional manuscripts. Note that there will be a separate Call for Abstracts for student posters and they will be submitted to a separate online entry point. Stu-dents may submit similar material for a student poster and a paper presentation. Those individuals who want to havetheir submissions considered for an award must indicate it at the time they submit their abstracts and must provide the necessary personal information. To be eligible for the young professional manuscript award, the individualmust be the lead author, have the major responsibility for the work, and be the presenter at the conference.

Richard Tropp Ashok KumarTechnical Program Chair Technical Program Vice Chair

A&WMA policy stipulates that all authors who attend the Annual Conference & Exhibitionmust register and pay the appropriate registration fees.

2009 Technical Program Timeline

September 2008Call for Abstracts

December 5, 2008Abstracts Due

January 2, 2009Abstract Reviews Due

January 12, 2009Session Proposals & Draft Panel Info Due

January 22-23, 2009ACTP Planning “Develop Grid”

February 2009Preliminary Program

March 13, 2009Draft Panel Extended Abstracts &Draft Manuscripts Due

April 10, 2009Final Panel Extended Abstracts & Final Manuscripts Due

May 2009Final Program

June 16-19, 20092009 ACE Program


2009 A&WMA Annual Conference List of Proposed Principal AreasAbstracts are solicited on current issues, case studies, and practical experiences. Please reviewthe proposed principal areas and indicate on the online submittal form which focus area/prin-cipal area best encompasses your abstract. If your abstract matches more than one focusarea/principal area, list the choices in your preferred order. The following list of focus areas issegmented according to the Technical Council Groups (Air, Environmental Management, andWaste), Divisions, and Technical Coordinating Committees. Also included are focus areas forEducation Council, international focus, and local and regional issues.

PRINCIPAL AREAS

AIRBASIC SCIENCES

AB-1 Particulate Matter• PM Measurements• PM Chemical Speciation• Fugitive Dust• PM Models/Modeling• PM Measurement Uncertainty and Error Analysis• International PM Studies

AB-2 Chemistry of the Atmosphere • Biofuels - Characterization and Impact• Ambient Studies - Measurements and Modeling• Advances in Analytical Measurements and Techniques• Photochemistry and Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation

AB-3 Meteorology of the Atmosphere• Meteorological and Modeling Aspects of Nuclear Facility Siting• Applications of Short-Range Modeling• Ozone and Regional Haze Modeling• Regulatory Model Applications• Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Modeling• Uses of Remote Data in Air Modeling• Challenges to Air Quality Emissions, Modeling, Deposition,

and Measurements

AB-5 Noises and Vibration• Transportation, Industrial, and Community Noise Issues

AB-6 Visibility and Radiative Balance• Visibility and Radiative Balance• Visibility and Radiative Balance – Beyond Sulfur

AB-7 Indoor Air Quality• Transportation Indoor Air Quality• Soil Vapor Intrusion• Sources, Measurement, Impacts and Control• Chemistry and Physics• Investigations and Remediation• Balancing Sustainability and Indoor Air Quality• Green Buildings

EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

AE-1 Control of Particulate and Associated Acid Gases• SOx Emissions Measurement and Control• Fine Particle Emissions Measurement and Control• Mercury Chemistry, Measurement, and Control• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission Control Technology• Mercury and Power Generation: Control Technology

AE-2 Control of Solvents, Odors, and Gases• Control of Gaseous Emissions from Alternate Fuels Production• Air Treatment Technologies• Novel Air Pollution Control• Biotreatment, Biotransformation, and Biocatalysis Treatment of

Air Contaminants

MEASUREMENTS

AM-1 Emission Factors and Inventories• Use of Satellite Observations in Emissions Inventories• What to Do With Emissions Data That Are Collected: Dealing with

Outliers, Different Units, and Form of the Standard• How to Characterize Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Facilities

(Including Mobile Sources, Electricity Generation, Etc.)• International and Transboundary Perspectives on Emission Factor

Development


AM-2 Receptor/Source Apportionment• Advances in Source Apportionment and Receptor Modeling• Using Source Apportionment for Accountability• Using Source Apportionment Tools to Investigate Climate Change

AM-3 Ambient Monitoring• Ambient Monitoring International • Ambient Air Methods, Studies, and Advances• Ambient Air Studies and Projects that Cross Transboundary Areas• National Air Emissions Monitoring Study - Experience and Progress

in Assessing Emissions from Agricultural Operations

AM-4 Source Monitoring• Laboratory Aspects of Source Monitoring• Non-traditional Approaches to Continuous Compliance Determination• Recent Developments in Source Monitoring• Legal and Quality Management Aspects of Emission Monitoring

AM-5 Data Management, Analysis, and Quality Assur-ance• Quality Assurance and Quality Control• Fundamentals of Environmental Data Management and Analysis• Use of Environmental Metrics• Data Analysis and Trends• Choosing and Using Satellite Data: Basics of Satellite Data

Management• Using Satellite Data to Examine Special Events• Analysis of Particulate Matter Data Sets

OPTICAL SENSING

AO-1 Techniques of Optical Sensing• Validation, Standardization, and Protocol Development for Optical

Sensing (Including Issues Related to Regulatory Acceptance)• Novel Optical Sensing Techniques and Instrumentation

AO-2 Application of Optical Sensing• Optical Sensing of Transportation-Related Pollution• Application of Optical Sensing Instrumentation for Environmental

Monitoring• Optical Techniques for Greenhouse Gas and CO2 Sequestration

Monitoring

AO-3 Optical Sensing for Leak Detection• Leak Detection and Fenceline Monitoring in Petrochemical Plants

and Refineries• Release Detection and Emission Measurement from Oil and Gas

Fields and Refineries

TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS

AT-1 Toxic Emissions Release, Response, and Strategies(TERRAS)• Air Toxics Emissions and Source Characterization• Air Toxics Developments – Implementation, Area Sources, and

Residual Risk• State Air Toxics Programs• Modeling of Accidental/Episodic Air Toxics and Flammable Releases

AT-3 Health and Environmental Effects of Air Toxics• Aspects of Health Effects Associated with Persistent

Bioaccumulative Compounds (PABs)• Vapor Intrusion – Health Effects• Health and Environmental Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials• Air Toxics of Alternate Fuels and Health Effects• Statistical Evaluation of Exposure and Health Effects of Air Toxics

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTEFFECTS

EE-1 Health Effects and Exposure• Near Roadway Exposure• Impacts of Changes in Transportation on Human Exposure• Assessing the Health Impacts of Exposure to Nanomaterials• Personal Exposure Monitoring• Integrating Exposure Data and Modeling• Exhaust Emissions from New Technology Diesel Engines• Exposure Estimates and Source Attribution of In-vehicle Pollution

EE-5 Risk Assessment and Management• Recent Experiences with Risk Assessment• Risk Communication• Risk Assessment and Modeling Techniques and Tools• Local, Regional, and Global Health Risk Management• Risk Assessment and Management of Mobile Source Emissions• Ecological Risk Assessment

EE-6 Odor Measurement, Effects, and Management• Municipal Solid Waste and Yard Waste Composting Odors –

Case Studies• Odor Measurement, Effects, and Management• Odor Control Case Studies• Modeling and Monitoring of Odors• Odor Nuisance and Enforcement Case Studies

EE-7 Homeland and Environmental Security• Chemical Site Security• Homeland Security Preparedness and Response


INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

EI-1 Federal Facilities• Environmental Compliance at Federal Facilities• Implementation of Executive Order 13423, Energy Initiatives, and

Sustainability at Federal Facilities

EI-2 Power Generation• Bridge Technologies and Strategies for a Carbon Constrained World• Challenges in Public Utilities in a Carbon Constrained World• Nuclear Power – Moving Forward• The Role of Energy Efficiency in Combating Climate Change• International Power Generation Strategies for Dealing with Global

Climate Change

EI-3 Non-Utility Boilers, Furnaces, and Process Heaters• Environmental Issues Facing Commercial and Industrial Energy

Sources• Fundamentals of Efficient Boiler Operation• Carbon Footprinting for Industrial Boilers• Latest Developments on the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional

Boiler MACT

EI-4 Chemical/Petroleum Sources• Global Issues in the Chemical and Petroleum Industries• Permitting and Enforcement Issues in the Chemical Manufacturing

Industry• Compliance Systems Solutions for the Petroleum and Chemical Sector• Emerging Issues in the Petrochemical Industry

EI-5 Cement, Lime, and Non-Metallic Mineral Processing• Regulatory Updates and Impacts on the Portland Cement and

Lime Industry• Sustainability

EI-6 Metal Industries• Energy Efficiency Projects in the Metals Industries• New Coke Oven Environmental Issues• Strategies for Metals Industry to Meet Requirements of New SIPs

for PM2.5 and Ozone

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

EP-1 Policy and Regulations• Air Permitting Conditions, Problems, and Issues• Great Lakes Protection and Diversions• The Federal/State Relationship• Review of EPA’s Current Substantive Rulemaking• Company Outreach to the Public• Modifying the Clean Air Act• Experience in Incorporating Flexibility into Title V Permits

EP-3 Legal/Liability• International/Transboundary Issues

EP-4 Facility Permitting and Siting• Facility Permitting Issues

EP-5 Public Participation and Facility Siting• Public Participation in Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions• Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Projects

EP-8 Environmental Health and Safety ManagementSystems• EHS and Sustainability in the Public Sector – Lessons Learned from

Executive Order 13423• Identifying and Managing Key EHS Metrics and Systems• Raising the Bar on Compliance – Striving for Zero Defects• Six Sigma – Using Data to Improve Performance• Environmental Health and Safety• Driving Improved Performance by Behavior Management

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND SUSTAINABILITY

ES-1 Pollution Prevention• Integrated Contingency Planning• Approval and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Techniques• Identification of Pollution Prevention Opportunities• Design for Product Stewardship/Life Cycle Ownership• Innovative Technologies for Reducing Pollution Including Greenhouse

Gases

ES-4 Sustainability• Urban Built Environment Impacts on Climate Change• Green Building and Land Use• Sustainable Development through Partnership and Collaboration• Climate Change and Sustainability• Sustainable Agriculture• The Sustainability Movement

ES-5 Climate Change Strategies• The Role of Renewable Energy in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation• Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Clean Energy• Climate Policy and Regulation• Climate Impacts and Adaptation• Climate Change Including Its Impact on the Auto Industry• Energy Efficiency and Conservation


TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

ET-1 Transportation On and Off Road• Diesel Vehicles – Tier 4 and Beyond: Energy Efficient and Low

Emitting?• Technologies that Could Achieve Reductions of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions from the Transportation Sector Focusing on Engines and Fuels

• General Emissions/Modeling/Clean Diesel Issues• Transportation and Advanced Technologies Strategies from the

Auto Capital• Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles: Energy, Environmental, and Policy

Implications• Off Road Sources, Airports, Rail, Marine and Construction

ET-2 Land Use and Transportation Policy• Land Use and Transportation Measures to Address Global Warming• Transportation – Air Quality Issues in Developing Countries

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENTMUNICIPAL AND MEDICAL WASTE

WM-1 Integrated Waste Management, Waste Preven-tion, and Recycling• Zero Waste Systems, Zero Waste to Landfills, Eco-Industrial Parks

and Communities• MSW Recycling Technology, Economics, Policy, and Outreach• Electronics Reuse, Recycling and Management• International Perspectives and Case Studies in Municipal Solid

Waste Management• Special Wastes, C&D and Disaster Waste Reuse and Recycling• Zero Waste in the Automotive Industry• Green Procurement, Green Accounting, Design for Environment

WM-3 Municipal Waste Treatment• Landfills, Bioreactors, Gas and Leachate Collection, Treatment, and

Energy Recovery, and Landfill Mining• Composting Technologies, Emissions, Quality, and Applications• Bioenergy and Alternative Fuels – Technologies, Policies, and

Applications• Anaerobic Digestion, Co-Digestion of Food Waste, Agricultural and

Industrial• Ash and Residuals Management and Beneficial Use – Technologies,

Policies, and Applications• Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Management and Treatment• Thermal Treatment of Solid Wastes/Residuals, Gasification, and

Waste-To-Energy Applications• Water/Wastewater Treatment Residuals, Management, and Processing

WM-4 Medical Waste Treatment• Healthcare Waste Management (Including Infectious Wastes,

Pharmaceuticals, Radioactive Healthcare Waste, and Pathological Wastes)

• Medical Waste Prevention and Resource Efficiency• Medical Equipment Reuse and Recycling• Medical Waste Treatment and Processing Technologies (Including

Alternative Treatments)• Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Management• Community Generated Healthcare Wastes

HAZARDOUS, RADIOACTIVE, AND MIXED WASTE

WR-1 Site Characterization, Investigation, and Remedia-tion/Redevelopment• Site Investigation• Brownfields• Climate Change and Waste Management• Remediation of Emerging Contaminants

WR-2 Management and Treatment of Hazardous, Ra-dioactive, and Mixed Wastes• Area Based/Centralized Waste Management• Hazardous Waste Management• Management of Radioactive Materials Associated with Emergency

Response• Radioactive Decontamination and the Associated Wastes and

Byproducts• Greenhouse Gas Issues in Waste Management• Hazardous Waste Management at Federal Facilities

EDUCATION• Environmental Education and Outreach: Opportunities and

Challenges• State of Environmental Research and Development in the Energy

Arena• Information Technology for Environmental Action

INTERNATIONAL FOCUS• Environmental Issues in Emerging Economies• International Global Climate Change Mitigation Efforts

LOCAL AND REGIONAL ISSUES• Great Lakes Protection• Midwest Regional Initiatives Related to Climate Change• The Future of Power Generation in the Midwest• Auto Industry Challenges


emprofessional development programs

The following five courses are being held in conjunctionwith the A&WMA Specialty Conference, Symposium on AirQuality Measurement Methods and Technology, November 3–6,2008, in Chapel Hill, NC. For more information about thisconference, go to www.awma.org/events.

NOVEMBER 3 (8:00 A.M.–5:00 P.M.)AIR-253: Optical Remote Sensing for Emission Characterization from Non-Point SourcesInstructor: Ram A. Hashmonay, Ph.D., ARCADIS

This course is intended to give attendees an under-standing of the recently published Other Test Method 10(OTM10): Optical Remote Sensing for Emission Characteriza-tion from Non-point Sources (www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmeth-ods.html). Specific methodologies will be discussed withregard to their potential applications. No prerequisites arerequired.

AIR-301: Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model Version 8 (CMB8)Instructors: John Watson and Judy Chow, Desert ResearchInstitute

This course provides an introduction to CMB8 modeloperation and application. CMB8 is the primary softwarefor applying the Chemical Mass Balance receptor modelto the source apportionment of suspended particles andvolatile organic compounds on both urban and regionalscales.

AIR-229: Analyzing Ambient Air Toxics DataInstructor: Hilary Hafner, Sonoma Technology Inc.

A national air toxics trends monitoring network hasbeen deployed as part of the National Air Monitoring Strategy. While national-scale analyses of the data havebeen conducted by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), there is a need, and interest in, evaluationof the air toxics data by region, urban area, and site. Thiscourse presents a comprehensive approach to air toxicsdata analysis. No prerequisites are required.

NOVEMBER 3 (8:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.) AIR-206: Sampling and Analysis Methods for Vapor IntrusionInstructor: Bart Eklund, Principal Scientist, URS Corp.

Field studies of vapor intrusion may involve a wide variety of different sampling and analytical approaches.This course provides attendees with a basic working knowl-edge of approaches for measuring gas-phase concentrationsand gas transport. Such measurements may be performedoutside the building (e.g., soil gas, ambient air) or insidethe building (e.g., sub-slab soil gas, indoor air, pressuredifferential, building ventilation rate).

NOVEMBER 3 (1:00–5:00 P.M.)AIR-268: Data Evaluation for Vapor Intrusion Studies

Instructor: Bart Eklund, Principal Scientist, URS Corp.Vapor intrusion is the migration of gas-phase substances

from the subsurface into buildings or other structures. Thiscourse introduces various data analysis procedures for eval-uating vapor intrusion data sets that include indoor airdata, with an emphasis on identifying background volatileorganic compound concentrations and taking any suchbackground into account in the decision-making process.No specific prerequisites are required, but attendees shouldbe familiar with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) guidance for vapor intrusion.

The following course is being held in conjunction with theA&WMA Specialty Conference, Hazardous Waste Combustors,November 12–14, 2008, in Galveston, TX. For more informationabout this conference, go to www.awma.org/events.

NOVEMBER 12 (8:00 A.M - 5:00 P.M.)AIR-285: HWC MACT, Trial Burn/Risk Burn Compliance TestingInstructor: Douglas Saathoff, Executive Vice President,METCO Environmental Inc.

This course will provide practical information for designing and conducting a successful trial burn, risk burn,or hazardous waste combustor (HWC) Maximum AchievableControl Technology (MACT) performance test. Specificroles, preparation steps, and responsibilities will be discussedfor each of the parties involved in the test program. Theimpact of regulatory requirements on test plan design willbe addressed, as will the protocol U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) methods for emissions measurement,associated quality assurance/quality control, and methodlimitations.

The following four courses are being held in conjunctionwith the specialty conference, Vapor Intrusion Conference 2009,January 27–30, 2009, San Diego, CA. For more informationabout this conference, go to www.awma.org/events.

JANUARY 27 (8:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.)AIR-206: Sampling and Analysis Methods for Vapor IntrusionInstructors: Gina Plantz, Senior Scientist, Haley & AldrichInc.; and Bart Eklund, Principal Scientist, URS Corp.

Field studies of vapor intrusion may involve a wide varietyof different sampling and analytical approaches. Thiscourse provides attendees with a basic working knowledgeof approaches for measuring gas-phase concentrations andgas transport. Such measurements may be performed outsidethe building (e.g., soil gas, ambient air) or inside the building(e.g., sub-slab soil gas, indoor air, pressure differential,building ventilation rate). The course should prove usefulfor persons with responsibility for developing or reviewingtest plans for vapor intrusion studies.


AIR-207: Design Considerations for the Mitigation ofVapor IntrusionInstructor: Matthew Traister, Managing Engineer, O’Brien& Gere

This course provides attendees with an understandingof the various techniques—both active and passive—thatcan be applied in order to mitigate the vapor intrusionpathway. Site remedies, institutional controls, and buildingcontrol options are addressed, with the latter techniquebeing discussed in detail. Advantages and disadvantagesfor the various building control options are reviewed anddiscussed, and conceptual unit cost estimates are pro-vided. Special design considerations involving structuretype and environmental factors are also presented.

JANUARY 27 (1:00 P.M.–5:00 P.M.)AIR-268: Data Evaluation for Vapor Intrusion StudiesInstructor: Bart Eklund, Principal Scientist, URS Corp.

This course introduces various data analysis proceduresfor evaluating vapor intrusion data sets that include in-door air data, with an emphasis on identifying background VOC concentrations and taking any such background into account in the decision-making process. The data

analysis methods can be used to determine whether or notvarious compounds exhibit similar behavior to one another.This information can then be used to ascertain whether themeasured concentrations in indoor air for a given VOC arethe result solely of vapor intrusion, solely of backgroundsources, or a combination of vapor intrusion and back-ground sources. No specific prerequisites are required, butattendees are assumed to be familiar with U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency guidance for vapor intrusion.

AIR-274: Vapor Intrusion Pathway Modeling—Developmentand ApplicationInstructor: Instructor: Robert Ettinger, Associate, GeosyntecConsultants

Modeling is frequently a key step in the evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway for chemical release sites. Thiscourse is intended to give attendees an understanding of thedevelopment and use of models to evaluate this pathway. Thefundamental fate and transport mechanisms included in com-mon vapor intrusion models will be described and evaluationof critical model inputs discussed. Additionally, the course willinclude an overview of available models and provide examplesof model application. No prerequisites are required. A scien-tific or engineering background would be beneficial. em

16. This statement of ownership will be published in the October 2008 issue of this publication.17. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. — Lisa Bucher, Managing Editor

Average No. Copies Each Issue During Actual No. Copies of Single Issue PublishedPreceding 12 Months Nearest to Filing Date

A. Total Number of Copies (Net press run) 6613 6700B. Paid and/or Requested Circulation

1. Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 5164 5109

2. Paid In-County Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 0 03. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors,

Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution 856 8574. Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS 0 0

C. Total Paid Distribution 6020 5966D. Free Distribution by Mail (Samples, complimentary, and other free)

1. Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541 145 1452. In-County as Stated on Form 3541 0 03. Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS 0 04. Free Distribution Outside the Mail (Carriers or other means) 250 350

E. Total Free Distribution 395 495F. Total Distribution 6415 6461G. Copies not Distributed 198 239H. Total 6613 6700I. Percent Paid 94% 93%

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation

1. Publication Title: EM. 2. Publication Number: 1088-9981. 3. Filing Date: September 12, 2008. 4. Issue Frequency: Monthly. 5. Number of Issues Published Annually: 12. 6. Annual Subscription Price: $255/$385. 7. Location of Known Office of Publication: One Gateway Center, Third Floor, 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd, Pittsburgh,PA 15222-1435. 8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher: Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA), One GatewayCenter, Third Floor, 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. 9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor:Publisher/Executive Director: Adrianne Carolla, Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA), One Gateway Center, Third Floor, 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd, Pittsburgh, PA15222-1435. Editor/Communications Director: Andy Knopes, Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA), One Gateway Center, Third Floor, 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd, Pitts-burgh, PA 15222-1435. Managing Editor: Lisa Bucher, Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA), One Gateway Center, Third Floor, 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd, Pittsburgh,PA 15222-1435. 10. Owner: Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA). 11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: None. 12. Tax Status: The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization andthe exempt status for federal income tax purposes have not changed during the preceding 12 months. 13. Publication Title: EM. 14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below:August 2008. 15. Extent and Nature of Circulation:


SIX-WEEK ONLINE COURSEAIR-284E: Boilers, Process Heaters, and Air Quality RequirementsInstructor: Leo H. Stander, P.E., DEE, NSPE, Environmental Consultant

The purpose of this course is to explain the air quality requirements that are involved in the design and operation of industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and processheaters. Prior knowledge of the operation of these units is useful,but is not required. Prior knowledge of air pollution control measuresor requirements is not necessary or expected. Upon completionof this course, participants should be able to identify affected boilersand process heaters; discuss air quality requirements, includingSIP, PSD, NSR, NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT; describe emissions limitations and work practice standards; describe monitoring procedures for determining initial and continuous compliance;and explain reporting and record keeping requirements.

2008 Schedule:October 27 – December 7 (AIR-284E-8)

SIX-WEEK ONLINE COURSEEMGM-191E: Internal Environmental AuditorInstructor: David R. McCallum, M.E.Des., President, M+A Environmental Consultants, Inc.

The purpose of this course is to develop the knowledge and skillsneeded to effectively participate in internal auditing programs, forboth environmental management systems (EMSs) and regulatorycompliance. At the end of this course, participants should be ableto explain the purpose of environmental auditing, describe thefactors necessary for a successful audit, assist in the planning andundertaking of environmental audits, develop audit protocols,gather acceptable audit evidence, and prepare appropriate auditfindings and follow-up audit results. Prior knowledge of EMSs, environmental regulations, or auditing techniques is useful, but isnot required.

2008 Schedule:October 27 – December 7 (EMGM-191E-22)

FOUR-WEEK ONLINE COURSEGEN-100E: Environmental Practices Review (EPR)Instructor: Tim C. Keener, Ph.D., P.E., QEP, Professor, University of Cincinnati

This course is intended to help those interested in reviewingtheir science and engineering skills as they relate to environmentalproblem-solving. Those interested in using this material as a refresher before taking certification examinations (e.g., QEP)should find it most helpful. This material can serve as both a reviewand a stand-alone course for the study of fundamental concepts in environmental engineering and science. The objective of the course will be to teach students how to solve problem

typically found in environmental engineering and science, and assumes that the participant has some previous knowledge of thesubject matter.

2008 Schedule:October 6 – November 2 (GEN-100E-30)

FOUR-WEEK ONLINE COURSEGENAQ-100E: Environmental Practices Review (EPR)Specialty Course: Air QualityInstructor: Joseph P. Pezze, QEP, President, The Hillcrest Group, LLC

This course is designed to help students prepare for profes-sional certification through a review of major air quality issues. Inthis course, students will not only focus on scientific and technicalissues, but will also learn how to apply them to real-world scenar-ios. Discussions topics will include ambient air quality standards,permit requirement, particulate and gaseous air pollution con-trols, toxic emissions, emission inventories, source testing, con-tinuous monitoring, air pollution meteorology, and combustion.Additionally, issues such as pollution prevention will be discussedas alternatives to end-of-pipe controls. Upon completion of the course, students will have a general understanding of air quality, and know what it takes to analyze and understand major airquality issues.

2008 Schedule:October 6 – November 2 (GENAQ-100E-22)

FOUR-WEEK ONLINE COURSEAIR-311E: NOx Control for Industrial and Utility ApplicationsInstructor: Thomas F. McGowan, P.E., President, TMTS Associates, Inc.

This intermediate course is focused on the control of nitrogenoxides (NOx) emissions for industrial heating equipment, includ-ing boilers, kilns, furnaces, and thermal oxidizers, as well as coal-fired boilers and gas turbines used for power production.Economical “front-end” changes in combustion equipment andmore expensive “end-of-pipe” post-combustion controls are covered. Regulations that affect allowable NOx levels are also reviewed. The knowledge gained in the course will allow attendeesto comply with myriad regulations and promote safe and economical operation. There are no prerequisites, however, a scientific, engineering, or operations background would be beneficial, as would some knowledge of industrial applications(e.g., steam boilers, gas turbines).

2009 Schedule:TBD

COURSE IN DEVELOPMENT:EMGM-382E: Fundamentals of New Source Review (NSR)

Visit the E-Learning Center atwww.awma.org for up-to-date schedules.

emp rofess iona l d eve l op m en t p rog ram s


JOURNALOF THE AIR & WASTE

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Listed below are the articles appearing in the October 2008 issue

of the Journal.

For ordering information, go to www.awma.org/journal

or call 1-412-232-3444.

In This Month’s Issue…Effects of a Zeolite-Selective Catalytic Reduction System on Comprehensive Emis-sions from a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine

Study on the Indoor Volatile Organic Com-pound Treatment and Performance Assess-ment with TiO2/MCM-41 and TiO2/QuartzPhotoreactor under Ultraviolet Irradiation

Characterization of Real-World Activity, FuelUse, and Emissions for Selected MotorGraders Fueled with Petroleum Diesel andB20 Biodiesel

Sensitivity of Two Dispersion Models (AERMOD and ISCST3) to Input Parametersfor a Rural Ground-Level Area Source

Pesticides in Urban Multiunit Dwellings:Hazard Identification Using Classificationand Regression Tree (CART) Analysis

Evaluation of the Use of Diffusive Air Sam-plers for Determining Temporal and SpatialVariation of Volatile Organic Compounds inthe Ambient Air of Urban Communities

Control of Diesel Gaseous and ParticulateEmissions with a Tube-Type Wet Electro-static Precipitator

Effects of Open Burning of Rice Straw onConcentrations of Atmospheric PolycyclicAromatic Hydrocarbons in Central Taiwan

Characterization of Ambient Fine Particles inthe Northwestern Area and Anchorage, Alaska

Evaluation of the Mesoscale MeteorologicalModel (MM5)-Community Multi-Scale AirQuality Model (CMAQ) Performance in Hind-cast and Forecast of Ground Level Ozone

Single-Source Impact Analysis Using Three-Dimensional Air Quality Models

Developing and Evaluating Techniques forLocalizing Pollutant Emission Sources withOpen-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Measurements and Wind Data

10OCTOBER 2008VOLUME 58

em2008

OCTOBER

12–16 International Society forEnvironmental Epidemiol-ogy & International Societyof Exposure Analysis (ISEE–ISEA) 2008 Joint AnnualConference, Pasadena, CA

14–16 Energy from Biomass and Waste (EBW 2008),Pittsburgh, PA; www.ebw-expo.com

NOVEMBER

3–6 Symposium on Air QualityMeasurement Methods andTechnology, Chapel Hill, NC

12–14 Hazardous Waste Combustors Conference &Exhibition, Galveston, TX

12–14 Canadian Municipal WasteManagement Conference,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

12–14 Better Air Quality 2008(BAQ 2008), Bangkok, Thailand

18 Air Quality Modeling: The Basics Webinar, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. Eastern

DECEMBER

2–4 Partners in EnvironmentalTechnology Technical Symposium & Workshop,“Meeting DoD’s EnvironmentalChallenges,” Washington, DC;www.serdp-estcp.org/symposium

2009JANUARY

11–15 16th Joint Conference onthe Applications of Air Pol-lution Meteorology withA&WMA, Phoenix, AZ

27–30 Vapor Intrusion Conference,San Diego, CA

FEBRUARY

1–4 12th Annual Conference onClean Air, Mercury, GlobalWarming & Renewable Energy (EUEC 2009), Phoenix,AZ; www.euec.com

MARCH

24–27 7th International Conference on Air Quality—Science and Application(Air Quality 2009), Istanbul,Turkey

MAY

18–22 28th Annual InternationalConference on ThermalTreatment Technologies,Cincinnati, OH

JUNE

16–19 A&WMA’s 102nd AnnualConference & Exhibition,Detroit, MI

OCTOBER

25–29 International Air Quality VIIConference, Arlington, VA;www.undeerc.org

26–30 Air Quality Modeling, Raleigh, NC

2010JUNE

22–25 A&WMA’s 103rd AnnualConference & Exhibition,Calgary, Alberta, Canada

SEPTEMBER

11–16 15th World Congress of theInternational Union of AirPollution Prevention Associations (IUAPPA):Achieving EnvironmentalSustainability in a ResourceHungry World, Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada

Events sponsored and cosponsored by the Air &Waste Management Association (A&WMA) are high-lighted in bold. For more information, call A&WMAMember Services at 1-800-270-3444 or visit theA&WMA Events Web site: www.awma.org/events.

To add your events to this calendar, send to: CalendarListings, Air & Waste Management Association, OneGateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd.,Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. Calendar listings arepublished on a space-available basis and should be received by A&WMA’s editorial offices at least threemonths in advance of publication.

c a l e n d a r o f e v e n t s


em Each month, this page profiles a different A&WMA memberto find out what makes them tick at work and at home.

WILLIAM H. (BILL) REAMY, QEPPrincipal EngineerStack Hawk Environmental ServicesTowson, MD

A&WMA Member Since: 1982

South Atlantic States Section; Baltimore/Washington Chapter

Association leadership roles held:

Secretary, A&WMA’s AM-4 SourceMonitoring Technical Committee (present)

Chair and Secretary (present), SouthAtlantic States Section of A&WMA

Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and Past Chair (present), Baltimore/Washington Chapter

Members wantedTo recommend an A&WMA member tobe profiled on this page, please send themember’s name and contact informationto: Editor, EM Magazine, Air & WasteManagement Association, One GatewayCenter, 3rd Floor, 420 Ft. DuquesneBlvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435; fax: 1-412-232-3450; e-mail: [email protected].

“I have made manyfriends for life

through A&WMA.”

t h e m e m b e r m i n u t e

em: What inspired you to become an environmental professional?Reamy: I was a test engineer at Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG&E) when Johns HopkinsUniversity started its master’s degree program in environmental engineering. Ijumped at the chance to make a career move. Besides, I was recycling glass bottles10 years before it became common practice.

What environmental leader do you admire most and why?I don’t necessarily admire leaders. I admire hard-working individuals who are competent at what they do and who are willing to help you understand their decisions or accomplishments.

What advice would you give to students and/or young professionals just starting out in the field?Start with a government environmental job. You may not like it much and you maynot stay there long, but you will gain invaluable experience dealing hands-on withgovernment regulations and policies and industrial compliance issues.

What does A&WMA membership mean to you?The most valuable part of my A&WMA experience has been the networking; notonly meeting new people with common environmental interests, but maintainingties with members across the country. I have made many friends for life throughA&WMA.

What was the best A&WMA Annual Conference you’ve attended?Why, Baltimore in 2002, of course! Although I love to travel to new cities, I have topick the Annual Conference that was held in my own backyard, primarily because ofthe hard work and dedication I experienced working with the organizing committees.We were working under the heavy burden of 9/11 and the associated travel restrictions,but nevertheless pulled off a very successful meeting. I am also very proud of thetechnical and social tour programs I helped set up and run.

What are your proudest accomplishments as an environmental professional?I would have to say when I was in charge of all plant air pollution testing and auditsat BG&E.

Are you currently working on any interesting projects? Not really a project, but rather a change in lifestyle. I recently retired from a stategovernment environmental job to become an independent environmental consultant.I enjoy the challenge, the freedom, and the variety of assignments—as long as I keepgetting new projects to help keep my head above water.

What’s the single biggest environmental problem facing the world today?Overpopulation. It is the cause of many of the world’s problems, not only environ-mental issues.

How do you like to let off steam?Soccer, travel, and music. I follow soccer at all levels, from my friend’s daughter’steam all the way up to the World Cup level (Bill is pictured above supporting TeamUSA at the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany). My wife and I love to travel, mostlyby train. I also belong to two singing groups and to the chorus of a modern operagroup. em

Order Now !Member price $168Nonmember Price $178

To place your order:• Online at www.awma.org (secure site)• E-mail [email protected]• Call A&WMA Publications Order Department at

+1-412-232-3444, ext. 6001.• Order Number OTHP-O1R: Air Pollution Engineering Manual,

Second EditionEdited by Wayne T. Davis, Ph.D., University of TennesseeCopyright April 2000, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

• Shipping costs additional.

First comprehensive revision since 1992

Air PollutionEngineeringManualSecond EditionEight years in the making, this second editionis a vital source of information on air pollutioncontrol issues for industries worldwide affectedby regulations, including the Clean Air Act.

Learn about the latest emission factors and controlmeasures for reducing air pollutants.

Read about the fundamental technological andregulatory information you need to comply with recentair pollution standards for industry and government.

View more than 500 detailed flowcharts and photos.

Utilize the extensive listing of Internet resources.

Experts from diverse fields cover:• biological air pollution control• emission control methods for a multitude

of industries, ranging from woodprocessing and brick, ceramic andpharmaceutical manufacturing to graphicarts, metallurgy, waste and wastewater

• changes in emission factors for eachsource category, including particulatematter

• updated MACT regulations andtechnologies, and more!

This book is a must for industryand government professionals,and a great gift for recent orsoon-to-be graduates!

Another PremierPublication from

Air & Waste Management AssociationConnecting the World’s Leading

Environmental Professionals

www.awma.org


<font color="#660000">(FULL)</font>

Contact us today for your free trial at [email protected]

New! With just a click, your entire project input and output results displayed in Google EarthTM

Simple GEO.DAT processing with automated download of world wide terrain and land use data in several formats and resolutions (DEM, SRTM, etc.)

New! Cross-section XY graphs for CALMET.DAT data such as vertical temperature profiles, terrain, and mixing height

Training Available

Google Earth

CALPUFF View

3D View

KEY FEATURES

Easy digitization using graphical tools and high impact 2D and 3D visualizations

Tel: (519) 746-5995 | Fax: (519) 746-0793

www.weblakes.com | [email protected]

Lakes Environmental Software

Long-Range Air Dispersion Puff Model

CALPUFF Viewtm

FETS View

Emissions Viewtm

FETS Viewtm

IRAP-H Viewtm

CAM Viewtm

CALPUFF Viewtm

AERMOD Viewtm

the tools you need to complete your air pollution projects

Air Dispersion Modeling - Emissions Inventory - IT Solutions

CALPUFF ViewTM brings complete graphical pre- and post-processor interfaces for the US EPA-approved CALPUFF, CALMET and CALPOST modeling system.

Facility Emissions

Tracking System

Air Dispersion Model Air Dispersion Model

Human Health Risk

Assessment Model

Compliance Assurance

Monitoring System

Emissions Inventory and

Permitting System

L

vnEsekaL

attanemnoriv

awwatfoSla

era

mt

weiVSTEF

enuoyyoslooteht

oMnoisrepsiDriA

mt

weiVDOMREA

aruoyyoetelpmocotdee

nIsnoissimE-gniledo

mt

weiVFFUPLAC

stcejorpnoitullopria

oituloSTI-yrryotnevn

sno

mt

weiVH-PARI

snoissimEytilicaFFa

metsySgnikcarTTr

mt

weiVMAC

ledoMnoisrepsiDriA

mt

weiVsnoissimE

ledoMnoisrepsiDriA

l

VFFUPLAC

ksiRhtlaeHnamuH

ledoMtnemssessA

mt

weiV

U

e

PLACna-erppa-APE

cnarussAecnailpmoC

metsySgnirotinoM

p

n

argetelpmocsgnirbMTweiVFFUhtrofsecafretnirossecorp-tsopdn

CdnaTEMLACFFUPLACdevorpp

ayrotnevnIsnoissimE

metsySgnittimreP

l

d

acihpSUeh

TSOPLA

n

neruoy,kcilcatsujhtiW!weNideyalpsidstlusertuptuodna

shpargYXnoitces-ssorC!weNtarepmetlacitrevsahcusatad

hhd

SERUTAATEFYEK

oisrepsiDriAeR-g

VFFUPAC

tupnitcejoojrperitnMThtraEelgooGn

TAATD.TEMLACroffos,niarret,seliforperut

ledoMffuPno

weiV pa-APEledom

htraEelgooG

weiVFFUPLAC

CdnaTEMLAC,FF,FUPLACdevorpp.metsysgni

weiVD3

TSOPLA

wgnissecorpTAATD.OEGelpmiSarretediwdlrowfodaolnwoderdnastamroffolarevesniatad

).cte,MTRS,MED(

thgiehgniximdna

ihparggnisunoitazitigidysaEoitazilausivD3dnaD2tcapmi

detamotuahtiwesudnaldnani

snoitulos

hgihdnaslootlacsno

erfruoyrofyadotsutcatnoCmoc.sekkealbew@selastalairt

htraEelgooG

em

5(:leT

kalbew.www

elbaliavAAvgniniarT

-647)915(:xaFFa|5995-647)91

albew@selas|moc.sek

3970-

moc.seka

the magazine for environmental managerspubs.awma.org/gsearch/em/2008/10/not needed/_full...

Documents