competitive strategy: timing is everything managing ...pubs.awma.org/gsearch/em/2013/1/do not...

Also in this issue:

Competitive Strategy: Timing Is Everything

PM File: Managing Expectations to Manage Relationships

Message from the Executive Director: Moving A&WMA to the Next Level

JANUARY 2013

Environmental JusticeA look at the development, implementation, and enforcement of laws, regulations, and policies as they relate to this important topic

Here’s just a sampling of the benefits you receive as an A&WMA Member:

Quality Information: from the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association to EMmagazine to technical books and publications, you get the technical, practical, and professionalinformation you need.

Professional Development and Education: improve your professional skills and expertise atmore than 30 continuing education programs, specialty conferences, and a wide variety ofworkshops held each year, in addition to the Annual Conference & Exhibition.

Networking and Contacts: take advantage of numerous opportunities to meet with yourpeers and expand your circle of valuable business contacts.

Job Search and Employment: find a position in the environmental field or fill a vacancy inyour organization through our online job board.

Membership and Resource Directories: your quick reference for finding colleagues and arange of products and services.

Discounts: members receive substantial discounts on publications, conferences, educationalseminars, insurance coverage, logo merchandise, and more.

Recognition: get recognized for your accomplishments through the A&WMA awards programs, publishing an article in EM or the Journal, or serving on an A&WMA committee.

A&WMAMembership Benefits

For more information on these great member benefits, contact A&WMA Member Services at 1-800-270-3444 or visit us online at www.awma.org.

The Air & Waste Management Association’s 2013 Annual Conference and Exhibition is thepremier education, networking, and solutions event.

The conference features more than 500 presentations and 40 panels, and offers the mostup-to-date information in a wide variety of environmental fields. This year's theme is TowardsSustainability; the technical program will look at sustainability from the perspective of manydifferent industry sectors, including energy production, transportation, and manufacturing. In addition, the conference will also offer the most current information on the latest air andwaste issues.

Come network with professionals and students from around the world, enhance your knowledgebase at a tech session or professional development course, and visit the exhibit hall for thehottest tools of the trade.

A&WMA’s 106th Annual Conference & Exhibition

Towards SustainabilityJune 25-28th, 2013 | Hyatt Regency Chicago | Chicago, Illinois

» For more information on the Annual Conference& Exhibition visit:http://ace2013.awma.org.

2 em january 2013 awma.orgCopyright 2013 Air & Waste Management Association

Highlights from the 2012 FHWA-EPA NorthernTransportation and Air Quality Summitby Kevin Black, Michael Roberts, Joseph Rich, Mark Glaze, Paul Heishman,

and Mike Claggett, U.S. Federal Highway Administration; and Martin

Kotsch, Greg Becoat, and Melanie Zeman U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

A summary of the session findings at the 2012 Northern Transportation

Air Quality Summit held in Philadelphia, PA, August 7-8, 2012.

Page 28

22 14

9

10

18

january 2013 em 3awma.orgCopyright 2013 Air & Waste Management Association

EM, a publication of the Air & Waste Management Association (ISSN 1088-9981), is published monthly with editorial and executive offices at One Gateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435, USA. ©2013 Air & Waste Management Association. All rightsreserved. Materials may not be reproduced, redistributed, or translated in any form without prior written permission of the Editor. Periodicals postage paid at Pittsburgh and at an additional mailing office. Postmaster: Send address changes to EM, Air & Waste Management Association, OneGateway Center, 3rd Floor, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435, USA. GST registration number: 135238921. Subscription rates are $295/year for nonprofit libraries and nonprofit institutions and $445/year for all other institutions. Additional postage charges may apply. Pleasecontact 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 domesticaddresses, six months for foreign addresses. Duplicate copies will not be sent to replace ones undelivered through failure of the member/subscriber to notify A&WMA of change of address. A&WMA assumes no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by contributors to this publication.Views expressed in editorials are those of the author and do not necessarily represent an official position of the Association.

Environmental Justiceby Dan Mueller

Environmental justice emerged in a significant way in the United States in the 1980s,but has its roots in the 1950s and 1960s. Simply defined as “the fair treatment andmeaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” the development and implementationof environmental justice programs have evolved over time encompass a number of regulatory and procedural initiatives. This month, EM presents four articles thataddress issues related to environmental justice and offer varied perspectives andopinions on this important and timely topic.Page 9

The legal Basis for EPA’s Environmental Justice Programby Peter Gregg, Fritz, Byrne, Head & Harrison

Page 10

The Disparate Impact Trapby Michael Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

Page 14

NEXT MONTH:

Coal Combustion Residuals Regulations

COLUMNSCompetitive Strategy: Timing Is Everything . . . . . . . 34by Richard McLean

PM File: Managing Expectationsto Manage Relationships . . . . 38by David Elam

ASSOCIATION NEWSMessage from the President . . . . . 42013, a Year for Rebuildingby Sara Head

Message from the Executive Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Moving A&WMA to the Next Levelby Jim Powell

JA&WMA Announces the Arthur C. Stern Distinguished Paper Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

EPA Appoints A&WMA Members as Heads of Two Independent Science AdvisoryCommittees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43William Ellison

DEPARTMENTSLetters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Washington Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Canadian Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

News Focus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

JA&WMA Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Forum: Opinions expressed in Forum are those of the author, and do not reflect official A&WMA policy. EMencourages your participation by either responding directly to this Forum or addressing another issue of interestto you. E-mail: [email protected].

Sustainability at the Environmental Protection Agencyby Deeohn Ferris, Sustainable Community Development Group Inc.This article first appeared in the March/April 2012 issue of The Environmental Forum. Copyright© 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELI®.

Page 18

A Tale of Two Sectionsby Barry Hill, Environmental Law InstituteThis article first appeared in the September/October 2012 issue of The Environmental Forum. Copyright© 2012Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELI®.

Page 22

Special Thank You to Our 2012 Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


As I begin my term as President, I’d like to thank Imme-diate Past President Merlyn Hough for his inspiration andsteady hand on the tiller during 2012. In his Decembermessage, Merlyn graciously welcomed our incomingBoard and thanked the outgoing Board members andinterim Executive Director Bob Hall, who also have mysincere gratitude for their service over the past year. I amalso excited to work with A&WMA’s new Executive Director Jim Powell, who started in October. With Jim onboard, I’m looking forward to a fresh start for the Asso-ciation (see Jim’s inaugural Message from the ExecutiveDirector on page 7).

A&WMA HEADQUARTERS

Jim Powell, QEPExecutive 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]

ADVERTISINGAlison [email protected]

EDITORIAL Lisa BucherManaging [email protected]

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEDan L. Mueller, P.E., ChairZephyr Environmental CorporationTerm Ends: 2013

Mingming Lu, Vice ChairUniversity of CincinnatiTerm Ends: 2013

John D. BachmannVision Air ConsultingTerm Ends: 2015

Gary Bramble, P.E.Dayton Power and LightTerm Ends: 2014

Prakash Doraiswamy, Ph.D.RTI InternationalTerm Ends: 2014

Steven P. Frysinger, Ph.D.James Madison UniversityTerm Ends: 2015

C. Arthur Gray, IIIDuPontTerm Ends: 2015

Christian HogrefeU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTerm Ends: 2013

John D. KinsmanEdison Electric InstituteTerm Ends: 2014

Miriam Lev-On, Ph.D.The LEVON GroupTerm Ends: 2015

Ann McIver, QEPCitizens Energy GroupTerm Ends: 2014

Mark R. Manninen3MTerm Ends: 2014

C.V. Mathai, Ph.D., QEPArizona Public Service CompanyTerm Ends: 2015

Paul Steven PorterUniversity of IdahoTerm Ends: 2015

Teresa RaineERMTerm Ends: 2014

Jacqueline SibbliesIndependent ConsultantTerm Ends: 2014

Jesse L. ThéLakes Environmental SoftwareTerm Ends: 2015

Abhilash Vijayan, Ph.D., P.E., QEPCalifornia Air Resources BoardTerm Ends: 2014

Susan S.G. WiermanMid-Atlantic Regional AirManagement AssociationTerm Ends: 2015

James J. Winebrake, Ph.D.Rochester Institute of TechnologyTerm Ends: 2015

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEEMichael T. Kleinman, ChairUniversity of California, IrvineTerm Ends: 2014

Naresh Kumar, Vice ChairEPRITerm Ends: 2014

2013, a Year for Rebuildingby Sara [email protected]

We have a number of challenges ahead. Our member-ship numbers have continued to decline, as we still arefeeling the effects of the economy, companies restrict-ing participation and travel, and the availability of somuch information via the Internet. I ask all of you to helpme find ways to reverse this trend and make our Asso-ciation more relevant and rewarding.

For myself, A&WMA has been an extremely positive factorthroughout my 37+-year career as an environmentalconsultant, helping me network and stay connected. Thisbegan with my attendance at the Association’s Annual

emawma.org

em • message from the president

Sara Head (center left), General Chair at the 1986 Visibility Specialty Conference in Grand Teton, along with the conference technical program committee.Committee members in 1986 included many of the same A&WMA members involved in the September 2012 visibility conference in Whitefish, MT, including keynote speaker Bill Malm and Dr. Ivar Tombach (both recent recipients of the A&WMA Frank A. Chambers Award); Rob Farber, long-term secretary of the AB-6 committee; Dr. John Watson, Associate Editor of the Journal and Critical Review Committee member; and C.V. Mathai, Past President of A&WMA. Photo courtesy of Dr. Peter Mueller, one of our 50+-year A&WMA members.


Upcoming Webinars - Save These Dates!

Webinar Details:

Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013Time: 1:30 PM-3:30 PM - Eastern Time

Speakers:Maile Smith, Northgate Environmental Management

Rick Wice, TetraTechElisabeth Hawley, Arcadis

Jake Torrens, AMEC

Registration Fee:

Moderator:Stephanie Fiorenza, BP

Members: $99; Non-Members $149

Webinar Details:

Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2013Time: 1:30 PM-3:00 PM - Eastern Time

Presenters:Nick Hutson, EPABob Fraser, ERM

Moderator:Connie Senior, ADA Director of Technology Development

Registration Fee:Members $99; Non-Members $129

So you’re burning coal? What do you need to know about mercury, HCI, metals and other toxics control? This webinar will address technical and permitting issues from two perspectives: what is required and what strategies could you adopt . The presentations will be followed by a Q&A.

For more information please visit www.awma.org

A&WMA and Sustainable Remediation Forum Present:Sustainable Remediation: Greenwashing or Common Sense?

A&WMA and AIChE Present:Emissions of Mercury and Other Air Toxics: Compliance Strategies for Coal Combustion

For more information please visit www.awma.org

This webinar will introduce the audience to SURF and the concept of sustainable remediation. Join in and learn how to apply the triple bottom line to remediation. The following topics will be covered: SURF, sustainable remediation, state of the practice, metrics and tools, and case studies.

pU

or fegies tartSe complianCy and rcureMEmissions of

eserPhE CA and AIMA&W

ebinars - Womingcp

ombustionnCoal Cor xics: oTToirAther Oy and

t:nese

hese DTevaSebinars -

es!tahese D

embers $99; Non-MistgeRceriDADDAA,rr,enioSonnie CodeMFob B

ick Hutson, NeserP

-3:00 MP1:30 ime: TednesdWe: taD

ebinar Details:W

embers $129Members $99; Non-ee:Ftion arist

elopmentveDgy oechnolTTeor of t:rotarode

ERM, raserFAPPAEick Hutson,

ers:tneseimeTnretM - EasP-3:00

y 23, 2013r, Januayy,a

ebinar Details:

Stephanie Fiorenza,

JakeElisabeth H

RrNoaile Smith, M

1:30 ime: ThursdTe: taD

W

BPStephanie Fiorenza,Moderator:

ee:Ftion aristgeR

AMEC, senrroTToJakeadiscrA, yy,wleaElisabeth H

echTTearetTTe, eciWickRonmental Managementrvine Etthga

Speakers:imeTnretM - EasP-3:30 MP1:30

y 31, 2013r, Januayy,ahursd

ebinar Details:W

tion please visit amrofe inror moF

y a Q&A. bed woollfbe ould cies getart staed and whrequir

mitting issues frechnical and petnocxics otHCI, metals and other

t do ahWoal?cning re bur’uoyo S

g rwma.oa.wwwtion please visit

tions will atneserhe pTou adopt .yould t is aes: whvtico perspewtom rmitting issues f

ess rebinar will addwhis Tol?rtn,yy,rcurw about meonko tou need yt do

embers: $99; Non-M

tions will

. and case studiesemedia, sustainable rSURFF,

tion. emediao rom line tbotttion. Join in and learemediasustainable roductrebinar will inhis wT

mrofe inror moF

embers $149Members: $99; Non-g

ics and t, metreticace of the prttion, staemediaed: ervoopics will be cwing tollohe fTtion. iple o apply the trw tn hotion. Join in and learept of onco SURF and the ce te the audiencoduc

www.awma.orgtion please visit am

, oolsics and ted: iple ept of

Conference in Portland, OR, in 1976, shortly after startingmy first professional job as an air quality specialist atAeroVironment. After moving to Denver in 1981, I becamean officer in the Rocky Mountain States Section. Andwhen I moved back to California in 1985, Past PresidentDick Baldwin quickly recruited me to be an officer of theChannel Islands Chapter. I’ve been an officer or directorof that Chapter and/or the West Coast Section ever since,for the past 27 years. These positions, as well as plan-ning and organizing conferences and workshops, havegiven me the confidence, connections, and leadershipopportunities that have helped me in my career, now asa vice president at AECOM. I hope that my story will inform others of the great value in A&WMA member-ship and illustrate how a professional organization canbecome a critical component of one’s career.

This past September, I had the privilege of giving open-ing remarks at the A&WMA Specialty Conference onVisibility and Air Pollution in Whitefish, MT. It was espe-cially meaningful for me, since I had chaired the Visibil-ity Specialty Conference in Grand Teton National Parkin 1986 (see photo). As a long-term member ofA&WMA’s AB-6 Visibility and Radiative Balance Com-mittee, it is always enjoyable for me to meet up with themany friends, colleagues, and coworkers I’ve come toknow over the years through this Association.

The 2012 conference was very impressive in that it attracted more than 150 participants from all over theworld and seemed to me to be the epitome of whatA&WMA has to offer—a neutral forum where profes-sionals and students can present their work and have theopportunity to make lasting contacts, as well as hear thelatest in scientific research and policy developments. Delbert Eatough and the organizing committee are tobe congratulated for a successful conference. I look forwardto participating in many more conferences, workshops,and Section and Chapter meetings in the coming year.

A&WMA has plans to provide many opportunities forinformation exchange, education, networking, and part-nering with other organizations in the coming year,thanks to the hard work of Gary Gasperino and otherswho have forged relationships with organization such asAIChE, EPA, and EPRI. We have a diverse slate of con-ferences, workshops, webinars, and professional devel-opment courses that are in the planning stages. Pleasetake advantage of these offerings and I invite you to letme know what we can do to further enhance your mem-bership experience.


One could chalk this up as a mere coincidence, buthere’s where the rubber meets the road: Craig J.Pritzlaff’s article, “Environmental Compliance in theReal World—Strategies for Avoiding Liability” (EMNovember 2012, p. 22), provided an excellent andaccurate summary of how I have always under-stood environmental compliance and the associatedliability therein. My guess is that I am not alone in this assessment. Given the outcome of theNovember elections, it was a timely reminder aboutthe importance of staying focused and on top ofensuring compliance with environmental regula-tions. The Editor’s Note accompanying the articleconveys that it was originally intended as a pres-entation at the 2012 A&WMA Annual Conference& Exhibition in San Antonio—kudos to the teamthat recognized that this article would provide anexcellent topic for the November issue, regardlessof whether or not it was delivered in its original, intended format.

After reading the article, I immediately went to theA&WMA Web site to download a PDF copy of thearticle, so I could distribute it to some of the atten-dees of the aforementioned training that I had pro-vided (note: validating internal training informationwith timely, relevant information from an outside,respected organization is worth more than any annual membership dues!). However, as I am oftenapt to do, I was disappointed to discover that mypoor recollection of my A&WMA Web site accountpassword had resulted in my account being locked.By quickly navigating through a much-improvedWeb site, I was able to contact Chad Nelson,A&WMA’s Information Systems Specialist, whopromptly and courteously reset my account, whichenabled me to distribute the article to my colleagues.And as a result, 20 people who may not haveheard of A&WMA now have tangible proof of thesuperior quality of an organization, its membership,and its member publication. So, in short, keep upthe good work A&WMA. I look forward to renew-ing my membership in the coming year!

Brady W. Wassom, MPHSHE Advisor, Croda Inc., Mill Hall, PA

Dear EM,

For reasons that may be understandable tomembers within any organization, I have recently been questioning the value of beinga member of A&WMA. As the worldwidemarketplace expands, with it are new op-portunities for learning, networking, andexchanging information that were hardly

comprehensible even five years ago. As an Association member since 2005, I have derived incredible value from A&WMA through networkingand training, but due to changing circumstancesboth within A&WMA and externally, I have won-dered if I may be better suited as a member of adifferent organization. The only real contact that Ihave with A&WMA at this stage in my life and career is an annual membership invoice, upcomingevent e-mails, and the monthly issue of EM thatfinds its way into my employee mailbox. While Ivalue the monthly issues of EM, they generallyhave not been relevant to my day-to-day job responsibilities as an environmental, health, andsafety specialist at a manufacturing site, but I amsensing a change.

Piggybacking on October’s excellent issue address-ing how air regulations have impacted public healthand welfare, November’s issue regarding environ-mental compliance and liability was a watershedmoment for me and my consideration of futuremembership in A&WMA. Prior to receiving thehardcopy issue, I had provided training for my facility’s engineering and maintenance staff that addressed, among other things, the liability that ourfacility and company at large must recognize andaddress on a daily basis when it comes to main-taining environmental compliance. I was delightedto see that the cover of the November issue addressed this very topic.

em • letters

Have Your Say!EM encourages readers to join the conversation by sending their comments on thisand other topics of interest to [email protected].

Also in this issue:Feature: California Readies for Historic Cap-and-Trade ProgramIT Insight: Managing Spreadsheet Risk

2013 A&WMA Annual Conference: Call for Abstracts

OCTOBER 2012

U.S. Clean Air ActHave Air Regulations Improved Public Health and Welfare?

Also in this issue:

Feature: Next-Generation Products from the GOES-R Satellite

PM File: Project Manager Maintenance

PLUS:

Au Revoir San Antonio!

Highlights from A&WMA’s 2012 Annual Conference

NOVEMBER 2012

Environmental

ComplianceTips to Avoid Liability

The Value of Being a Member of A&WMA


em • message from the executive director

Moving A&WMA to the Next Level• Partner with our competition to grow mem-

bership. We will focus on our strengths and workwith our partners and competitors to gain fromtheir strengths, so that we can have added valuefor both memberships.

• Communicate thoroughly and regularly tomembership. In doing so, I plan to publish aquarterly message to our membership in EM, aswell as provide monthly status reports to theBoard of Directors, which will be made availableon our Web site.

My Vision for the Association• Be the preferred source of training for all of

our member groups. By providing training invarious formats to accommodate travel restrictionsand tighter budgets.

• Focus on being “Air & Waste” not just “Air.” Bybroadening our programming to meet theseneeds and expand our reach.

• Be the neutral forum by bringing diversegroups together to discuss points of view thatwill help shape regulatory changes. Many ofour conferences and workshops will be designedto bring together differing viewpoints to encour-age communication and learning.

I look forward to meeting and working with manyof you over the coming year. I encourage you tocontact me with your ideas and suggestions for improving and sustaining our Association.

As I write this message, I have been working withour staff in Pittsburgh for more than two months.During this time, in addition to getting up to speedon everything A&WMA-related, I have been work-ing my way through the annual budget process,working to resolve ongoing membership renewalissues, as well as carry out the development andimplementation of new programming. I have focusedour efforts, as a staff, on treating our members asour best customers. In the process, I have developeda few priorities and an overall vision that I wouldlike to share with you here and that I hope will helpmove the Association to the next level.

My Priorities• Be more relevant to the entire membership.

This applies to our programming, our onlinepresence, and services to the various committeesand councils within the Association.

• Bring training and conferences to market intimely manner. We need to make certain thatour programming gets to market much quickerthan in the past. Webinars need to be completedwithin six weeks from initial concept. Workshopsand conferences will necessarily take more time,as a result of meeting logistics, but we will compress this time to make sure our topics arerelevant and timely.

• Have a current social networking and onlinepresence. In the past three years, our Web pres-ence has not been state-of-the-art. We will moveboth our social networking and online presencetoward 2013 technology and usefulness as soonas possible.

JA&WMA Announces the Arthur C. Stern Distinguished Paper AwardBeginning in 2013, the Arthur C. Stern Award will be given annually to an author(s) for their outstanding contribution to theJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association (JA&WMA) in the fields of air and waste management. The award will bebased on the publication of a paper in JA&WMA that has greatly advanced science and technology; is technical, scientific, ormanagement in nature, while advancing the mission of JA&WMA; and is considered to be a substantial contribution towardimproving our understanding of air pollution and waste management problems, their impact on environment and health, andthe use of sustainable practices in reducing our environmental footprint. There is no publication date limitation for this award,any previously published JA&WMA paper is eligible, and it is open to both members and nonmembers of the Association. Criticalreview papers and discussion papers published in JA&WMA are not eligible for this award.

Nomination ProcedureThe nominator should summarize the significant methods and findings of the paper, demonstrating the impact and importance of the paper in theair pollution or waste management fields, and submit the nomination package to the attention of Dr. S.T. Rao, JA&WMA Editor-in-Chief, [email protected] by no later than February 15, 2013. em

Jim Powell, [email protected]

��

ISSN 1096-2247


John D. BachmannVision Air Consulting, LLC

Jane C. BartonPatterson Consulting

Gary BrambleDayton Power and Light

Prakash DoraiswamyRTI International

Ali FarnoudSouthern Methodist University

Steve P. FrysingerJames Madison University

C. Arthur GrayDupont Inc.

George M. HidyEnvair/Aerochem

Christian HogrefeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

John D. KinsmanEdison Electric Institute

Miriam Lev-OnThe LEVON Group, LLC

Ying LiUniversity of North Carolina

Yiqiu LinLouisville Air Pollution Control District

Mingming LuUniversity of Cincinnati

Christopher MahendraNAVAIR

Charles E. McDadeUniversity of California

Ann McIverCitizens Energy Group

Scott McQuistonLansing Board of Water & Light

Rob MichitschUniversity of Wisconsin

Tree RaineCamp Dresser & McKee Inc.

David RamirezTexas A&M University,Kingsville

Jennifer RichcreekKodiak Electric Association Inc.

Robin Mills RidgwayPurdue University

Jacqueline SibbliesIndependent consultant

Amy TaketomoHartnell College

Michael N. TaptichUniversity of California, Berkeley

Jesse ThéLakes Environmental Software Inc.

Abhilash VijayanCalifornia Air Resources Board

Susan S.G. WiermanMid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

James J. WinebrakeRochester Institute of Technology

…And last but not least, a specialthank you to the colossal efforts ofour 2012 issue champions:

John Bachmann, Gary Bramble,Christian Hogrefe, John Kinsman,Miriam Lev-On, Julian Levy, DavidLong, Mingming Lu, Dan Mueller,Ram Ramanan, Geoff Scott, PaulSolomon, and Susan Wierman

em • 2012 reviewers

Thank You Reviewers!In recognition of theircontribution to EM, we take time out thismonth to recognizethe many volunteer reviewers who havedonated their time tohelp EM maintain thehigh quality and consistency of contentthat our readers havecome to expect of anA&WMA publication.Below is a list of thereveiwers who con-tributed to EM in2012. We thank you.Your efforts are greatlyappreciated.

Expert ReviewersWantedIf you would like to be added to EM’s poolof qualified revewiers,please send an e-mailto [email protected];include name, afiliation,and areas of expertise.


As referenced in the articles that follow, the CivilRights Act of 1964 provides a legal basis for sub-sequent environmental justice actions; however,other activities corollary to developing environ-mental justice concerns including the civil rightsmovement of the 1960s and the general environ-mental movement of the 1960s and 1970s. In1982, a demonstration in opposition to the sitingof a polychlorinated biphenyl landfill in WarrenCounty, NC, provided one of the motivations for astudy conducted by the Commission for Racial Justice that examined the correlation between raceand hazardous waste management facilities. Thereport, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States;A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities withHazardous Waste Sites, was published in 1987 andcited “a striking relationship between the location ofcommercial hazardous waste facilities and race.”Twenty-five years on, environmental justice is de-scriptive of a multitude of environmental initiatives,ranging from siting and permitting facilities to com-pliance and enforcement actions.

The first article by Peter Gregg (page 10) providesboth a historical perspective of the legal basis ofenvironmental justice actions by EPA and details onspecific programs emanating from major environ-mental statutes, including the U.S. Clean Air Act,the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, andthe Underground Injection Control Program (man-dated by the Safe Drinking Water Act).

The second article by Michael Steinberg (page 14)delves into details of environmental justice claims thatcould be posed and thus must be addressed relatedto the issuance, renewal, or modification of facilitypermits. Specific legal hurdles must be cleared to

move such claims forward, but similarly significantchallenges exist to addressing these claims.

Two articles included in this issue are reprinted withthe permission of the Environmental Law Institute(www.ELI.org), which advances innovative andpractical solutions to environmental challenges. Thefirst article by Deeohn Ferris (page 18) provideskeen opinion on a recently released National Research Council report, “Sustainability and theU.S. EPA,” providing a perspective of environmentaljustice issues within the more global realm of sus-tainability of communities.

The second by Barry Hill (page 22) looks closely atthe utilization of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964 within EPA’s comprehensive multiyear envi-ronmental justice plan.

Thanks to all of the authors for their time and effortin producing these knowledgeable and insightfularticles and to the Environmental Law Institute forgranting us permission to reprint the two articlesfrom their publication. em

em • cover story

Environmental JusticeEnvironmental Justice “is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” according the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Web site. This month, EM presents four articles that address issues

related to environmental justice and offer varied perspectives and opinions on this important

and timely topic.

Dan Mueller, P.E.PrincipalZephyr Environmental [email protected]

Dan is an A&WMA Fellow,past member of the A&WMABoard of Directors, Vice Chairof the Technical Council, andChair of EM’s Editorial Advisory Committee.


awma.org

em • feature

After 40 years in the making, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reasserted

its commitment to environmental justice through its recently-announced Plan EJ 2014. The

strength of the commitment, however, is limited by EPA’s legal authority to implement and

enforce the initiatives behind that commitment. This article explores the legal basis for EPA’s

environmental justice program, highlighting the Office of General Counsel’s Plan EJ 2014 Legal

Tools, in which EPA asserts wide-ranging authority under existing laws to pursue its goals.

Title VI and EPAThe legal foundation for EPA’s environmental justiceprogram originates with the U.S. Civil Rights Actof 1964.1 Title VI of the Act states: “No person inthe United States shall, on the ground of race, color,or national origin, be excluded from participationin, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected todiscrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” While Title

VI itself prohibits only intentional discrimination, theU.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Title VI author-izes federal agencies to adopt implementing regu-lations that prohibit discriminatory effects as well asintentional discrimination.2

EPA adopted regulations implementing Title VI in1973.3 Those rules require that all recipients of EPAfinancial assistance, including state environmental

by Peter Gregg

Peter T. Gregg is a 20-year environmentallawyer at Fritz, Byrne,Head & Harrison, PLLC in Austin, TX. E-mail:[email protected].

The legal Basis for EPA’s


“[O]ur

environmental laws

provide no reason

for not responding

to environmental

justice concerns;

rather they are

replete with

opportunities to

ensure the fair

treatment and

meaningful

involvement of

all people with

respect to the

development and

implementation of

environmental

requirements and

programs.” » U.S. EPA General

Counsel Scott Fulton,February 23, 2012

agencies receiving federal funding, ensure they implement their environmental programs in amanner that does not have a discriminatory effect.4

The EPA regulations include a mechanism for individuals to pursue administrative complaints alleging discrimination in violation of the regula-tions.5 EPA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) ExternalCompliance and Complaints Program is responsi-ble for that complaint process.6

In 1994, President Clinton targeted Title VI protec-tions under environmental laws with the issuanceof Executive Order No. 12898 “Federal Actions toAddress Environmental Justice in Minority Popula-tions and Low-Income Populations.”7 The order directed EPA and other specified agencies to “makeachieving environmental justice part of its missionby identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human healthor environmental effects of its programs, policies,and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”8 The Executive Order did notcreate any new law or legal remedies. Instead, it directed federal agencies to implement environ-mental justice policies under existing laws.

As President Clinton explained in a memo accom-panying the order, “Environmental and civil rightsstatutes provide many opportunities to address environmental hazards in minority communitiesand low-income communities. Application of theseexisting statutory provisions is an important part ofthis Administration’s [environmental justice] efforts.”9 Following the mandate, EPA’s Office ofGeneral Counsel (OGC) issued a memorandum inDecember 1, 2000, identifying several existinglegal provisions available to support the imple-mentation of environmental justice goals in EPApermitting actions.10

Plan EJ 2014 Legal ToolsOGC significantly expanded the December 1, 2000,effort pursuant to Plan EJ 2014, Administrator LisaJackson’s comprehensive framework for advancingEPA’s environmental justice priorities. The Office ofGeneral Counsel’s Plan EJ 2014 Legal Tools (LegalTools),11 issued in December 2011, expands on thepermitting authority discussed in the previous

memorandum. It also addresses EPA’s legal authority to pursue environmental justice goalsthrough standard-setting (e.g., establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards and WaterQuality standards), information gathering, publicinvolvement in environmental decision-making,grants and procurement, and protecting the envi-ronment on tribal lands.

The 108-page Legal Tools identifies and analyzeslegal authorities across all the major programareas—air, water, solid waste and emergency response, pesticides and toxics, tribal programs, environmental review programs (NEPA and CAASection 309), grants and procurement programs,and implementation of the Freedom of Informa-tion Act. The identified legal authorities addresslong-standing EPA practices, as well as approachesOGC acknowledges are innovative and would require changes in existing policy and regulation.

As EPA states in the report, “While some of thelegal authorities are clear, others may involve interpretive issues or legal risk that call for furtheranalysis.” Ultimately, the report provides importantinsight into the legal opportunities EPA has identi-fied to support existing and, more important, future environmental justice goals. Recommendingthat the document be reviewed in its entirety, thefollowing touches on some of the opportunitiesOGC discusses in Legal Tools: under the U.S. CleanAir Act, the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.

Clean Air ActIn the air permitting context, EPA’s EnvironmentalAppeals Board (EAB) has long held that EPA mustconsider environmental justice in issuing a federalPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit.12 The EAB has also recognized that EPA hasauthority under PSD program regulations to incorporate conditions into permits based on envi-ronmental justice considerations.13 In addition,OGC sees opportunities under existing laws to increase public participation in the air permittingprocess—both informally and in the formal permitconsideration process.

Environmental Justice Program


would protect such populations, the agency wouldhave the authority to deny the permit.17

OGC also finds support in the RCRA rulemakingcontext, under EPA’s authority to adopt regulations“as may be necessary to protect human health andthe environment.”18 OGC references the ChemicalWaste Management decision for support that thisregulatory standard allows EPA to ensure RCRAregulations don’t adversely impact low-income orminority populations. In its recent proposed revi-sions to the definition of solid waste, EPA includedan expanded environmental justice analysis that incorporates an evaluation of the potential for dis-proportionate impacts to minority and low-incomepopulations and protections to those populations.19

UIC ProgramWhere EPA is the agency issuing the UIC permit,OGC points to EPA’s authority to include permitconditions under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52 when it findsthat injection activity may result in drinking watercontamination that could adversely affect environ-mental justice communities.20 OGC also identifiesEPA authority to consider the implications for envi-ronmental justice communities in determiningwhether an aquifer meets the criteria for exemptedaquifers in 40 C.F.R. § 146.4. Additionally, it discusses EPA’s authority to pursue environmentaljustice goals through revision of current regulationsand guidance to ensure consideration of environ-mental justice concerns for all types of UIC wells.

Related to that discussion, on May 4, 2012, EPAissued for comment Underground Injection Control(UIC) Program Permitting Guidance for Oil and GasHydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels,UIC Program Guidance #84 – Draft.21 The draftguidance describes how environmental justice considerations could be incorporated into the UICreview process for hydraulic fracturing using dieselfuels, noting that permit writers and owners or operators should make a special effort to considerthose issues.

ConclusionAdministrator Jackson has reasserted EPA’s commitment to environmental justice. OGC has

Earlier this year, EPA issued a “Notice of Availabil-ity of Proposed Regional Actions to Promote Public Participation in the Permitting Process and Draft BestPractices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-IssuedPermits; Request for Comments,” soliciting publiccomment on ways that EPA and permit applicantscan improve community representation in the permitting process and on draft best practices forpermit applicants to promote community out-reach.14 Notably, EPA has received commentsseeking clarification that the guidance does not impose requirements in permit applications thatcould be used as the basis to deny permits.

Outside the air permitting context, OGC identifiesauthority to promote environmental justice goalsunder the Clean Air Act through the setting of airstandards, including (1) New Source PerformanceStandards pursuant to Section 111 of the Act (interpreting that section to provide EPA discretionto evaluate potential impacts of certain stationarysources on environmental justice communities); (2) standards for siting of solid waste incinerators(interpreting Section 129(a)(3) to include review ofenvironmental justice considerations in setting stan-dards for the siting of solid waste incinerator); (3) Hazardous Air Pollutant standards under Sec-tion 112; and (4) National Ambient Air QualityStandards under Section 109.

RCRAIn the RCRA permitting context, OGC points toprevious EAB decisions holding that EPA has authority to address environmental justice issues inRCRA permitting of hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal facilities. In In re ChemicalWaste Management of Indiana, Inc., the EAB foundthat EPA had discretion to implement the environ-mental justice mandates of Executive Order 12898through public participation requirements andEPA’s “omnibus” authority under RCRA Section3005(c)(3).15 The EAB concluded, “if the operationof a facility would have an adverse impact on thehealth or environment of the surrounding com-munity, the Agency would be required to includepermit terms or conditions that would ensure thatsuch impacts do not occur.”16 The EAB also heldthat if EPA could not develop permit terms that


determined that the legal authority is in place tosupport that commitment, as set out in the com-prehensive Office of General Counsel’s Plan EJ2014 Legal Tools. While most of the authorities

OGC identifies in Legal Tools are untested in the environmental justice context, the document offersimportant insight into EPA’s pursuit of its environ-mental justice goals. em

References1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. §2000d to 2000d-7).2. See Alexander vs. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 292-94 (1985).3. 40 C.F.R. Part 7.4. See 40 C.F.R.§ 7.30.5. Id. at § 7.120.6. A 2011 Deloitte Consulting report commissioned by EPA identified numerous deficiencies and proposed improvements to the External Compliance

and Complaints Program. See “Evaluation of the EPA Office of Civil Rights—Final Report,” Deloitte Consulting LLP, March 21, 2011. In response to theDeloitte report and other longstanding concerns, EPA has committed to reevaluate the program and its approach to analyzing Title VI complaints. See,e.g., “Developing a Model Civil Rights Program for the Environmental Protection Agency,” Final Report, Civil Rights Executive Committee, April 13, 2012.

7. 59 Fed. Regist. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).8. Executive Order 12898, sec. 1-101.9. Presidential Memorandum Accompanying Executive Order No. 12898 (Feb. 11, 1994).10. Memorandum from Gary S. Guzy, EPA General Counsel, “EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues

May be Addressed in Permitting.” (Dec. 1, 2000).11. Plan EJ 2014 Legal Tools; Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; available at http://www.epa.gov/

environmentaljustice/resources/policy/plan-ej-2014/ej-legal-tools.pdf. 12. See, e.g., In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121 (EAB 1999) (PSD permit remanded for failure to provide EPA’s environmental justice

analysis in the administrative record).13. See In re AES Puerto Rico, L.P., 8 A.E.D. 253 (EAB 1995) (“Because of concerns raised during the public comment period, this permit contains additional

conditions [post-construction monitoring requirements] that are not mandated by the PSD regulations but are within the Region’s discretion to require.”).14. 77 Fed. Regist. 38,051 (June 26, 2012).15. In re Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, Inc. (6 E.A.D. 66 (EAB 1995)).16. Id. at 74.17. Id. (The EAB cautioned, however, that “there is no legal basis for rejecting a RCRA permit application based solely upon alleged social or economic

impacts of a community”).18. See RCRA sections 3002(a), 3003(a), and 3004(a).19. 76 Fed. Regist. 44094 (July 22, 2011).20. See In re Envotech, L.P., 6 E.A.D. 260, 278-82 (EAB 1996) (EPA has authority to impose permit conditions to prevent the migration of fluids in

order to protect underground sources of drinking water relied upon by minority or low-income communities).21. 77 Fed. Regist. 27451 (May 10, 2012).

Air & Waste Management Association’s Specialty Conference

Guideline on Air Quality Models: The Path Forward will provide a

technical forum for environmental professionals to discuss the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's Guideline on Air Quality Models,

the guideline that is required for use in the preparation of state

implementation plans, federal construction permits, and state

permits.

For more conference information, please contact Carrie Hartz,

+1-412-904-6008 or [email protected]

Sponsorship and Tabletop Opportunities are available! For details

please contact Alison Lizzi, +1-412-904-6003 or email

[email protected]

Guideline on Air Quality Models: The Path ForwardMarch 19-21, 2013 Raleigh, North Carolina

http://aqmodels.awma.org/

Hotel Information

Sheraton Raleigh Hotel421 S. Salisbury StreetRaleigh, NC 27601Phone: +1-919-834-9900

ch 19-21, 2013 arM

uideline on AGth Coraleigh, N Rch 19-21, 2013

y Mualitir Quideline on Aolinaarth C

ahe PTdels: oy M darworth Fa

ttp://aqmoh g/wma.or.adelsttp://aqmo


awma.org

em • feature

by Michael W. Steinberg

Michael W. Steinberg, Senior Counsel, Environmen-tal, Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLP, Washington, DC. E-mail: [email protected].

A look at the concept of disparate impacts in the context of environmental permitting in an

effort to help state regulators and facility owners avoid the disparate impact trap.

The Disparate Impact Trap

Advocates for environmental justice frequently invoke the nondiscrimination mandate of Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 19642 to address perceived“disparate impacts”3 from state environmental programs. These Title VI claims often focus on the issuance, renewal, or modification of facility permits bystate environmental regulators.4 State environmental

agencies are subject to Title VI because they receive grants or other financial assistance from theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).5

On the one hand, such disparate impact claimsface significant legal hurdles,6 and their overallrecord of accomplishment has been quite limited.7


On the other hand, these claims pose a major chal-lenge both to state environmental regulators, whomay lack legal authority to consider demographicsin the permitting process,8 and also to industrial facilities, which have no control over the demo-graphics of their host communities and which focusprimarily on compliance with environmental regu-lations. This is the disparate impact trap.

Under President Obama, EPA is heavily emphasizingTitle VI enforcement as part of its overall environ-mental justice program.9 It is therefore timely to revisit the concept of disparate impacts in the context of environmental permitting. This articlesketches two closely related ideas that may assiststate regulators and facility owners in evaluatingthese disparate impact claims. First, alleged disparateimpacts from environmental permitting are oftenbased on arbitrary comparisons rather than on objective analysis. Second, even where disparateimpacts do exist, they still may not reflect any impermissible “discrimination.”10

The Search for Disparate ImpactsA facility or activity is said to have a disparate impactif—without any intentional discrimination at all—itspotential adverse effects fall disproportionately onmembers of a racial or ethnic minority group. Before we can evaluate proportionality, however,we first need to understand what is being com-pared to what.

Identifying disparate impacts can be straightfor-ward where the relevant comparison to be made isrelatively clear. Examples include the employmentdiscrimination context (under Title VII of the CivilRights Act of 196411) and other more traditionalfederally funded programs (under Title VI).

In regard to hiring practices, for example, we cancompare the racial composition of an employer’sworkforce to the racial composition of the qualifiedlabor pool.12 This is reasonable because, over time,we would expect the workforce to be demograph-ically similar to the qualified labor pool, assumingthat no impermissible discrimination is in play.

Likewise, for many federally funded programs, wecan compare the racial composition of the fundingrecipients to the racial composition of the qualified

applicants. Again, we presume that absent imper-missible discrimination, the pool of funding recipi-ents would, over time, be demographically similarto the pool of qualified applicants.

When it comes to environmental justice and facilitypermitting, however, no such straightforward com-parisons exist. It is difficult enough to identify thepopulation potentially affected by the facility (the“target” group). It is even more difficult to identifythe appropriate comparison group (the “reference”group) with any objectivity. Yet, these choices areliterally outcome-determinative, because the natureand extent of any disparate impacts are purely afunction of the demographics of these arbitrarilychosen groups.13

A basic problem in defining the target group is thatproximity is often used as a proxy for actual exposureto the adverse impacts of concern. Lacking data onwhether, and to what extent, proximity correlates withactual exposure, different proximities are selectedarbitrarily to define the target population (and itsdemographic composition). These arbitrary choicescan include measures based on geographic distances, on similar or different political or statisti-cal jurisdictions, or on other geographical proxiesfor actual exposures. For example, a target group

The term “environmental justice” has no fixed or technical definition. TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes it as follows:

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement ofall people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respectto the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmentallaws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities andpersons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys thesame degree of protection from environmental and health hazards andequal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environmentin which to live, learn, and work.”

Source: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice (last accessed November 19, 2012).

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently recommended that EPA develop a clearer and more focused definition, but EPA disagreed that a better definition was necessary.1

Environmental Justice


could be selected based on a specified distancefrom a facility, a particular jurisdiction, or a specificdirection or specific pattern of activity.

Even if a target group were selected on the basis ofactual exposure, the choice of a reference groupfor comparison is still based on arbitrary judg-ments. There is no control group that preciselymatches the demographic composition of the target group but lacks the presence of the facility ofconcern.

One can simply draw a circle with, say, a one-mileradius around the facility. Or one could consideronly those residents within the circle who livedownwind (or downgradient) from that facility. Or,instead of drawing circles, one could look to existingpolitical or statistical jurisdictions, such as censustracts, zip codes, townships, cities, counties, or evenstates. Each of these potential reference groups hasa different demographic composition, which, inturn, means that the results of a disparate impactanalysis will also be different. Yet no one can saywhich choice is more accurate, or more “appro-priate,” than another choice.

This analytical chaos reflects the fact that no bench-mark or theoretical standard exists for selecting ademographic reference group as the “appropriate”basis for comparison. Neither EPA’s Title VI regula-tions14 nor EPA’s Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA

Assistance Recipients15 offers any principled basisfor selecting “appropriate” target populations orreference populations. Because there are no principled answers, most claims of disparate impactfrom environmental permitting ultimately rest onarbitrary line-drawing.

The Search for DiscriminationAfter the lines have been drawn, and a disparateimpact identified, advocates for environmental justice tend to equate the existence of a disparateimpact with impermissible discrimination. Thisequation rests on a faulty premise, however, andthe reason why is closely related to the discussionabove.

Again, in the employment discrimination context(under Title VII), and in other, more traditional, TitleVI contexts, disparate impacts shift the burden ofproof to the defendant because—absent imper-missible discrimination—we would generally expectthe target group (e.g., the workforce) to resemblethe larger comparison group (e.g., the qualifiedlabor pool). But when it comes to environmentaljustice, such expectations are unjustified. In fact,they are contrary to both common sense and real-world experience.

Fundamentally, there is no reason to expect thatthe demographics of the population affected by aparticular facility would mirror the demographicsof the zip code, the city, the county, or the state inwhich the facility is located. Americans of a partic-ular race or national origin are not distributed uniformly across the land.16 So we have no basisfor believing that the demographics of the targetpopulation would, absent impermissible discrimi-nation, resemble those of a larger reference group,such as the city or the state.

In other words, even if (despite the problem iden-tified above in Part I) there were some agreed-upon or theoretically sound basis for selecting the“appropriate” reference group, there is still no reasonto expect that reference group to be demograph-ically similar to the smaller target group. Absent apersuasive basis for the expectation of demo-graphic similarity, any disparate impact that maybe identified is simply a disparity (i.e., a difference).It raises no inference of discrimination.

Most claims of

disparate impact

from environmental

permitting ultimately

rest on arbitrary

line-drawing.


Chief Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit made a similarpoint in Latimore vs. Citibank Federal SavingsBank,17a case involving disparate impacts in mort-gage lending. Writing for the three-judge appellatepanel, Judge Posner explained:

The fact that a qualified black is passed overfor promotion in favor of a white has beenthought sufficiently suspicious to place on thedefendant the minimum burden of present-ing a noninvidious reason why the black lostout. . . . [But] we pointed out the unsuitabilityof the [McDonnell Douglas vs. Green, 411U.S. 792 (1973)] framework when there is nobasis for comparing the defendant’s treatmentof the plaintiff with the defendant’s treatmentof other, similarly situated persons. . . . . Noreasonable suspicion of racial discriminationcan arise from the mere fact of a discrepancy. . . . At the heart of McDonnell Douglas is theidea that if the black is treated worse than thewhite in a situation in which there is no obviousreason for the different in treatment . . . thereis something for the employer to explain.18

Similarly, in analyzing claims of disparate impactsfrom environmental permitting decisions, there is “nobasis for comparing” the state agency’s treatment ofthe target group with its treatment of any largerreference group that is not affected by the samefacility. Even if the demographic makeup of the twogroups differs quite substantially, “no reasonablesuspicion of . . . discrimination can arise from themere fact of a discrepancy.”

ConclusionAt the end of the day, any given target group willresemble some reference groups fairly closely, otherreference groups, not so much. Where disparitiesare identified, we should not be particularly sur-prised, as there was no reason to expect homo-geneity of impacts in the first place. The disparitiestell us more about the reference group chosenthan about the attitudes of those involved in per-mitting and operating the facility. State regulatorsand facility owners alike should bear in mind thatsometimes a difference is just a difference. em

Notes and References1. Environmental Justice—EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective Implementation; GAO-12-77; U.S. Government Accountability

Office, Washington, DC, December 2011.2. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-2000d-7 (2006).3. The term “disparate impacts” does not appear in Title VI or in EPA’s regulations implementing Title VI. However, EPA’s regulations provide, inter alia,

that no recipient of EPA funding assistance may “use criteria or methods of administering its program or activity which have the effect of subjectingindividuals to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or sex . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 7.35(b) (2011) (emphasis supplied). This categoryof prohibited “criteria or methods” is commonly referred to as “disparate impact.” See generally Alexander vs. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).

4. See, e.g., South Camden Citizens in Action vs. NJDEP, 274 F.3d 771 (3d Cir. 2001); Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living vs. Seif, 132F.3d 925 (3d Cir. 1997), vacated as moot, 524 U.S. 974 (1998).

5. 40 C.F.R. § 7.15 (2011).6. See, e.g., Alexander vs. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).7. See, e.g., Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n vs. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009).8. State regulators typically have no legal authority to base permit decisions on social factors such as the demographic makeup of the population(s)

potentially affected by a facility. Moreover, any permit decision based on demographics could be viewed as “reverse discrimination” that raisesserious legal questions. See, e.g., Ricci vs. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009); Grutter vs. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

9. See, e.g., Angelita C. vs. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulations, Title VI Complaint 16R-99-R9 (April 2012 “preliminary finding of a prima facieviolation of Title VI as a result of the adverse disparate impact”); “Advancing Environmental Justice Through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” DraftSupplement to Plan EJ 2014, available at www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/civil-rights.html (last accessed November 14, 2012).

10. The precise legal interpretation of the term “discrimination” under Title VI is beyond the scope of this article, as are other bases for environmentaljustice claims, such as Executive Order 12,898 (1994). See generally Michael W. Steinberg & Tim A. Pohle, “Environmental Justice and RCRAPermits: Nothing is Quite What it Seems,” 26/22 Environment Reporter (BNA) 1025 (Oct. 6, 1995).

11. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (2006).12. See Ramona L. Paetzold & Steven L. Willborn, The Statistics of Discrimination: Using Statistical Evidence in Discrimination Cases § 5.04, at 5:7-5:9

(disparate impact analysis normally addresses qualified applicants or relevant labor markets, but may use for comparison the general populationwhen applicant data “are not available, reliable, or are believed to be biased, and where statistical information regarding the labor market is difficult to ascertain”).

13. Alice Kaswan, Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap Between Environmental Laws and “Justice,” 47 Am. U.L. Rev. 221, 231 (1997) (“Muchdepends on how relevant communities are defined and upon what constitutes a ‘proportional’ distribution of desirable or undesirable land uses.There are no easy or absolute answers to either of these questions.”).

14. EPA does not have separate Title VI regulations, but rather consolidated nondiscrimination regulations that are now codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 7(2011).

15. Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs, 65 Fed. Regist. 39,650, 39,681-82 (June27, 2000).

16. Leslie Kish, Survey Sampling 163 (1965) (“Generally, population variables are not ‘well-mixed’: they are not randomly distributed in groups andclusters . . . .”). Moreover, the factors that typically guide facility siting decisions, such access to water supplies, mineral resources, transportationcorridors, etc., are also not randomly distributed.

17. Latimore vs. Citibank Federal Savings Bank, 151 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1998).18. Latimore vs. Citibank Federal Savings Bank, 151 F.3d at 713-15 (citations omitted).


em • forum

Sustainability at theEnvironmental Protection Agency

My organization, Sustainable Community Devel-opment Group, works across the public, private,philanthropic, academic, and community sectors toadvance environmental sustainability, equitable de-velopment, and global smart growth. Working in-ternationally, in neighborhoods around the nation,and at the federal level, our bulls eye is where en-vironmental quality and public health meets com-munity and economic development. Our emphasisis on meeting the interdisciplinary needs of under-served constituencies—people of color and thepoor from many cultures—particularly with respectto the benefits of the emerging green economy. Acritical issue we face today centers on sustainabilityand environmental protection, specifically, the op-erational framework for integrating sustainabilityinto regulatory and other processes. As the Na-tional Research Council (NRC) report, “Sustain-ability and the U.S. EPA,”1 aptly notes, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the leadfederal agency in fulfilling the nation’s environ-mental and human health protection mandates—soit’s important that we get this right.

I concur with the NRC’s conclusion that policy mustincorporate a strong focus on the three pillars ofsustainability decision-making: environmental factors,economic factors, and social factors. The significanceof these three factors and the importance of inte-grating them can’t be overstated. I’d like to expandon this finding, particularly as to how it affects vulnerable communities and people in neighbor-hoods facing the challenges of environmental,health, social, and economic disparities.

There is no environmental decision today that doesnot occur within the context of land use and community and economic development, includingopen space, greenfields, wildlife preservation,

natural resources conservation, and biodiversity; forexample, mountaintop mining and drilling in theArctic Refuge. Environmental decisions are com-munity and economic development decisions andvice versa. These are the places around this nationwhere land use, zoning, and long term govern-mental and private sector disinvestments havegiven rise to distressed neighborhoods. Thesesame disinvestments, which simultaneously subsi-dized sprawl, aggravated any economic and socialdisparities already evident in these neighborhoods.

This is the era of the perfect storm—climate change,peak oil, the Deepwater Horizon disaster, global-ization of the credit crisis, high unemployment, pro-found health disparities, seismic-level foreclosures,and shrinking budgets. It’s also the dawning of thegreen economy and growing global consensusabout the significance of environmental protection.This intersection of good trends and bad ones pres-ents historic opportunities to ensure that disadvan-taged communities are engaged in and benefitfrom strategies to achieve sustainability.

In many of our communities, if sustainability isgoing to be sustainable, we need to address theimpacts produced by discrimination and the gov-ernmental subsidies that developed suburbs andexurbs at the expense of urban and rural cities andtowns. In other words, public policy and the investments that flow from those policies must reflect the undeniable fact that all communities arenot at the same starting point.

In underserved or disadvantaged communities, theon-ramp to sustainability is addressing environ-mental, socio-economic, and health impacts in ourneighborhoods, ensuring that these communitiescan deploy the tools and participate in the benefits

by Deeohn Ferris

Deeohn Ferris is presidentof the Sustainable Commu-nity Development Group Inc.,a not-for-profit corporationdedicated to metropolitansustainability, environmentalhealth, smart growth, and regional equity.

Environmental justice advocate Deeohn Ferris gave an incisive analysis of a National Research

Council report on the range and reach of the agency’s efforts at a recent ELI Associates Seminar.

This article first appeared inthe March/April 2012 issueof The EnvironmentalForum. Copyright© 2012Environmental Law Insti-tute®, Washington, DC.Reprinted with permissionfrom ELI®.

Opinions expressed in Forum are thoseof the author, and do not reflect officialA&WMA policy. EM encourages yourparticipation by either responding directly to this Forum or addressing another issue of interest to you. E-mail: [email protected].


of the emerging new green economy. This means rebuilding our communities—not just bricks andmortar, but also the social and economic fabric.This goal is not solely EPA’s mission. However, theagency is sufficiently crucial to sustainability nationally that these issues cannot be overlookedby it or any of the sister-federal agencies with related jurisdiction.

Negative environmental impacts, disproportionateimpacts, vacant properties, brownfields, health disparities, blight—these are nearly synonymouswith neighborhoods where low-income people andpeople of color live, work, learn, worship, and play.Race and class are firmly embedded in this scenario. For decades, the shift of investments anddevelopment went to sprawl. All across this nation,there are dedicated folks working against massivemarket forces and demographics to address thesedisparities. But people of color and low and mod-erate income are losing their homes and jobs fasterand looking for employment longer. What is nec-essary is reversing separate and unequal patterns,patterns that persistently segregate entire popula-tions from crucial benefits.

Some examples of green economy priorities andtools that could address these disparities include:

• distributing the economic and health benefits ofenergy conservation through green retrofits oflow income and affordable housing;

• creating jobs that are green and upwardly mobile;• emphasizing workforce preparedness, develop-

ment, and training;• providing financial and other incentives that

encourage minority entrepreneurship in renewableenergy and renewable energy technologies;

• ensuring that there are sufficient transportationoptions, including affordable public transit thatgets people to jobs; and

• ensuring the highest quality education for all ofour children.

As the NRC notes, dealing with the three pillarsmeans incorporating the interests and views of affected populations. Sustainable decision-makingcenters the community, involves the community,and engages the community from the outset. Thisrequires taking a progressive look at a reevaluation

Environmental justice is

about quality of life, public

health, equal protection

under law, and

participatory democracy.


transition to sustainability. Equity connects the dotsbetween the goal of improving quality of life andaddressing the complex issues that persist.

Correctly, the NRC report refers to communitybenefits and burdens. In the exercise of govern-mental and corporate power, we need to lookclosely at who bears the burdens and achieves thebenefits—to see through an equity lens as we eval-uate options and set public policy. In general in oursociety, the benefits accrue to those with the mostresources and the burdens fall on those with fewerresources.

Since the NRC study identifies legal standards as acrucial component of sustainability and highlightsthe precautionary principle of “do no harm,” I wantto interject this thought. Should the national tran-sition to sustainability contemplate addressing thelegal standard of burden of proof whereby thoseharmed must prove it while companies that pro-duce chemicals do not have the burden of provingthe safety of these substances?

RecommendationsT o the NRC team responsible for the report, a fewfriendly recommendations:

First, environmental justice is defined by more thancumulative environmental impacts. Environmentaljustice is about quality of life, public health, equalprotection under law, and participatory democracy.

Second, environmental justice experts and advo-cates don’t get the credit they’ve earned for ad-vancing the sustainability discourse at EPA andother agencies. For example, due to these advo-cates, we now know that environmental discrimi-nation exists, is wrong, and the government has aduty to redress it.

Third, please read Professor Bunyan Bryant’s defini-tion of environmental justice (see above). ProfessorBryant is a leading scholar in the field from the Uni-versity of Michigan at Ann Arbor. His definition isframed in the same vein as the definitions applaudedin the NRC report. Furthermore, his definition is aclear articulation of environmental justice ideals.

Fourth, please appoint environmental justice experts to the National Academy of Sciences and

of EPA’s statutory public participation authorities toensure the effectiveness of, in most cases, decades-oldmechanisms and, where needed, to improve them.

It also means determining ways to provide supportfor the quality of community engagement that isvital to effectively addressing issues on the ground.Compared to the availability of government andindustry resources, many neighborhoods face timeand monetary handicaps that impede full engage-ment. There are benefits to taking advantage of thecapacity of the entire community, combining localskills and talents with those of governmental andprivate sector decision-makers. Projects showcasedin the NRC report are a small slice of the progressbeing made by neighborhoods in every state.

Seamless Transition to SustainabilityOur goal is a seamless transition to sustainability, atransition that ensures inclusion in the benefits ofthe green economy, while ensuring that historicallyexcluded and disadvantaged communities are prioritized. Values and choices, in terms of whichcommunities are built and rebuilt and how, havefar-reaching impacts in achieving sustainability. Addressing the issues requires directly linking environmental justice, social and economic equitygoals, and sustainability objectives.

Since the NRC report mentions markets I want tosay one thing about them. Market forces alone willnot achieve sustainability. Market forces alone willnot ameliorate the public and private sector dis-investments affecting many of our neighborhoods.There are deeply interconnected issues, many ofwhich markets on their own do not address. Theseinclude poverty, poor health, crime, lack of serv-ices, transportation barriers, and the like. Further-more, equity is indispensable to the nation’s

What Is Environmental Justice?

“Environmental justice refers to those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors, policies, and decisions to support sustainable communities where peoplecan interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive.Environmental justice is served when people realize their highest potential without experiencing the ‘isms.’ Environmental justice is supported by decent paying andsafe jobs; quality schools and recreation; affordable housing; adequate health care;personal empowerment; and communities free of violence, drugs, and poverty. Theseare communities where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and highlyrevered, and where distributive justice prevails.”

» Prof. Bunyan Bryant, University of Michigan


its sister organizations. This expertise is indispen-sable to the framing and analysis of the critical issues assessed by the academies. Inclusion ofthese perspectives will augment the academies’high-quality work.

I’d like to share something hopeful about our nation’stransition to sustainability. I detect something freshin these times. While current political and economicevents constrain my exuberance, nevertheless, I’llcall it a shift in the wind in our favor—due, in nosmall part, of course, to the hard work of commu-nity leaders, affected constituencies and their alliesin government, the public interest sector, and theprivate sector. Right now, there seems to be morepublic and political discourse on issues of equitythan I can ever remember since the civil rights era.

There’s a difference in the wind now that advocatesmust take advantage of to make sustainability con-crete in ways that benefit our communities. Theseare the issues of our times: climate change, peak

oil, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy; globalizationof the credit crisis; armed conflicts and faminesaround the world; the Fukushima Daiichi nuclearcontamination incident. What’s happening in theworld is tantamount to environmental wake-up callafter environmental wake-up call. What’s happen-ing in the world is tantamount to sustainabilitywake-up call after sustainability wake-up call.

To advance sustainability, we’ve got to capitalize onthe media and public attention to the significanceof the global environment. Together with theemerging green economy—these are new oppor-tunities for us—even in these difficult times. Evenin these times, community quality of life, environ-mental and economic justice, public health and natural resources stewardship should be at the center of decisions and programs that involve andaffect communities. em

32nd International Conference on Thermal Treatment Technologies & Hazardous Waste Combustors

This thermal treatment conference provides a forum for the discussion of state of the art technical information, regulations, and

public policy on thermal treatment technologies and their relationship to air emissions, greenhouse gases, climate change,

renewable energy or alternative energy production, and sustainability.

Abstract Details:

Abstracts of 250 words or less should be submitted to Carrie

Hartz at [email protected] before May 1, 2013.

Conference Location:

Crowne Plaza Riverwalk San Antonio

+1-210-354-2800

Hotel Rate: $149

Sponsorship and exhibit opportunities are available.

The IT3/HWC Program Advisory Committee will consider all topics with new information in the following categories:

Thermal Treatment Applications - Municipal and Industrial

Pyrolysis and Gasification Applications for Energy Conversion

Waste to Energy, Renewable Energy, and Biomass Applications

Greenhouse Gas Management and Sustainability

Permitting and Regulatory Policy Issues

Research and Development (R&D) - All Areas

Plant Level Operational Issues

Pollution Control Technologies Related to Thermal Treatment

For more information please visit http://it3.awma.org

Reference1. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA; Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Research Council,

2011; available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13152.


awma.org

em • forum

On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) issued for public comment adraft document, entitled “Advancing Environmen-tal Justice Through Title VI.” The comment periodended on June 19. A notice of proposed rulemak-ing is due this fall. The draft is a supplement to theagency’s comprehensive multi-year environmentaljustice plan, known as Plan EJ 2014. The supplementsets forth the agency’s goals, milestones, strategies,and activities to ensure environmental justicethrough aggressive enforcement of the Civil RightsAct. This action by EPA raises two questions, posed

above. The answers are “not yet—Title VI is nopanacea” and “yes, the problem is with the statu-tory framework.”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibitsdiscrimination on the basis of race, color, or nationalorigin in all federally assisted programs. Section601 sets forth the basic principle that federal fundscannot be used to subsidize discrimination. It enun-ciates the underlying national policy that controlsthe other provisions. Thus, Section 601 is consideredthe heart of Title VI. The soul of Title VI, however,

A Tale of Two SectionsIs aggressive enforcement of the Civil Rights Act’s Title VI by EPA the panacea for beleaguered

communities who are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks? Or is the

problem with the statutory framework?

by Barry Hill

Barry E. Hill is a visitingscholar at the EnvironmentalLaw Institute, which recentlypublished his comprehen-sive work, EnvironmentalJustice: Legal Theory andPractice (Second Edition).He has taught environmentaljustice and sustainable development for 15 yearsat Vermont Law School,where he serves on theboard of advisors of the Environmental Law Center.

Opinions expressed in Forum are thoseof the author, and do not reflect officialA&WMA policy. EM encourages yourparticipation by either responding directly to this Forum or addressing another issue of interest to you. E-mail: [email protected].

This article first appearedin the September/October2012 issue of The Environmental Forum.Copyright© 2012 Environ-mental Law Institute®,Washington, DC. Reprintedwith permission from ELI®.


is Section 602, which provides the administrativeframework upon which the implementation of TitleVI is constructed, and hence the problem withusing the Civil Rights Act to prevent discriminationin environmental effects.

Section 602 directs every federal agency providingfinancial assistance to issue rules, regulations, or orders to ensure nondiscrimination in state andlocal government programs. Congress vested thepresident with the authority to approve the neces-sary instruments to coordinate implementation ofTitle VI compliance and enforcement activities.Shortly after its enactment, a presidential task force,working in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ), produced model enforcement regu-lations specifying that recipients of federal fundsnot use criteria or methods of administration whichhave the effect of subjecting individuals to discrim-ination. Federal departments and agencies subse-quently issued regulations that prohibit disparateimpacts or effects that constitute discrimination.This principle would prove central to enforcementof the title.

Section 602 provides that, after an investigation ofa complaint, the federal government cannot takeaction until the department or agency has determinedthat compliance cannot be secured by voluntarymeans. Moreover, if the federal government wantsto terminate assistance to a state or local govern-ment agency, the head of the federal departmentor agency must submit a written report to theHouse and Senate committees that have jurisdic-tion over the executive branch program or activityinvolved. And, the termination of funding does notbecome effective until 30 days have elapsed afterthe filing of the reports. In short, Congress estab-lished the framework of an enforcement processthat allows the federal government to terminate, orto refuse to provide or to continue, financial assis-tance to state or local government agencies thatfail to comply with the requirements of the act.

Title VI RegulationsOn July 5, 1973, EPA issued its Title VI regulations,entitled “Non-discrimination in Programs or Activ-ities Receiving Federal Assistance from EPA.” In1984, the agency amended its regulations into itscurrent form. EPA’s regulations include general and

specific prohibitions against intentional and uninten-tional discrimination, central to the disparate impactsor effects standard. The agency, in consultation withDOJ, completed its reevaluation of its implementingregulations in June 2012. Critically, it may issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for public commentthis fall to make any necessary changes.

Early on, Title VI became the favored tactic of environmental justice advocates since, theoretically,EPA’s implementation of the Civil Rights Act targetsthe discriminatory impacts or effects of decisionsmade by state or local governments. The agency’sregulations, as written, appeared to be able to pro-vide relief to affected communities, since Title VIdirectly addresses the inequitable distribution of environmental harms and benefits. Title VI wasconsidered a ray of hope, and, consequently, com-munity-based environmental justice organizationsdemanded over the years that EPA aggressively enforce its regulations.

For a variety of reasons, however, the agency has notbeen able to effectively implement its regulations. Inthe 2009 case Rosemere Neighborhood Associationvs. U.S. EPA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the agency’s failure for more than adecade to process Title VI complaints in accordancewith its regulations constituted “agency action unlawfully withheld pursuant to the AdministrativeProcedures Act.” The court noted that EPA “failed toprocess a single complaint from 2006 or 2007 in accordance with regulatory guidelines.”

EPA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) continues to havea considerable backlog of complaints. According tothe regulations, OCR has to acknowledge receipt ofa complaint within five days. OCR will then initiate itscomplaint processing procedures immediately andwill review the complaint within 20 days and deter-mine whether it will be accepted, rejected, or referredto the appropriate federal agency. If accepted, EPAwill notify the state or local government agency of itspreliminary findings within 180 days of the start ofthe complaint process.

After the Rosemere decision, EPA sought to followits Title VI regulations and issued, for the first time,a disparate impacts or effects decision in the caseknown as Angelita C., et.al. vs. California Department

Section 601 is

considered the

heart of Title VI.

The soul of Title VI

is Section 602


of Pesticide Regulation. In that matter, on June 9,1999, a complaint was filed with OCR on behalf ofthe children and the parents of children attendingschools near locations where the agricultural fumigant methyl bromide was being applied. Thecomplaint alleged that the California Departmentof Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) discriminated againstLatino children by renewing the registration ofmethyl bromide in January 1999, without takinginto consideration the health impacts that this pesticide would have on children that were attend-ing schools within a 1.5-mile radius of the areas inwhich the chemical was applied. The complaint alsoalleged that greater amounts of methyl bromidewere applied in areas surrounding schools withhigher percentages of Latino schoolchildren incomparison to areas surrounding schools withlower percentages. OCR accepted the complainton December 11, 2001. That same day, OCR notified CDPR of the acceptance.

In September 2002, EPA staff met with represen-tatives of CDPR as part of its investigation. In anApril 22, 2011, letter, OCR advised CDPR of itspreliminary finding of a prima facie violation of TitleVI as a result of the adverse disparate impact uponLatino schoolchildren from the application of methylbromide between the years 1995–2001. OCR recommended further action, and invited CDPR toengage in confidential settlement discussions. OnAugust 25, 2011, EPA announced that it hadreached a settlement with CDPR, which agreed toinstall one new air monitor, maintain a number ofexisting air monitors for a period of two years, andconduct outreach to the Latino community.

The Latino community and its legal counsel, how-ever, were not at all happy with the settlement,since it was reached without consultation, and,more importantly, provided no substantive remedyfor the long-standing discrimination experiencedby the beleaguered community. At an August2011 environmental justice conference in Detroitconvened by EPA entitled, One Community, OneEnvironment, community activists and advocatesdemanded, among other things, that EPA Admin-istrator Lisa Jackson rescind the Angelita C. settle-ment for those reasons.

It should be noted, however, that a Title VI admin-istrative complaint is not a “case” or “controversy”

within the meaning of Article III of the Constitu-tion. The complainant has no standing, which is aconstitutional touchstone for a plaintiff. In order to establish constitutional standing, in Lujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife, decided in 1992, the U.S.Supreme Court determined that a plaintiff mustdemonstrate three elements: injury in fact, a causalconnection, and redressability. The dispute in a TitleVI complaint is between the funding federal gov-ernment agency (EPA in the Angelita C. case) andthe grant recipient (CDPR). The Latino communitycomplainants, therefore, are not parties to the action, and, in accordance with EPA regulations, theinformal resolution of the dispute is between theactual parties only.

The question, however, is whether the statutoryand regulatory structure allows EPA to address thelong-standing environmental and public healthconcerns of communities similarly situated to theLatino community in the Angelita C. matter.

Statute Has LimitationsStrategies for using Title VI in environmental justicelitigation have relied on filing administrative com-plaints involving the implementing regulations,rather than on bringing claims in federal courtunder the statute. For the sake of argument, let’sassume that EPA will become much more aggres-sive at investigating and resolving complaints in atimely manner in accordance with its Title VI regu-lations. As the preceding example shows, however,this does not mean that the complaints will be resolved to the satisfaction of the affected com-munities. The problem may not be only withOCR’s implementation of the regulations: instead,it may be with the statute itself. Since the statuteand its implementing regulations do not contemplatethe agency shutting down a pollution-generatingfacility, it would appear that the language and thethrust of Title VI may need to be changed. Title VIdoes offer a ray of hope, but it is somewhat limitedin its reach.

Arguably, the problems with the statute are three-fold. First, the intentional discrimination standard isan impossibly high burden of evidentiary proof foraffected communities. Second, the statutory frame-work does not allow for the long-standing concernsof community-based organizations regarding thesystemic environmental and public health issues to

The lack of a

private right of

action for enforcing

Section 602 is

troublesome,

since it forces

community-based

organizations to

rely entirely on

EPA’s enforcement

of its regulations.


be addressed. And third, the lack of a private rightof action for enforcing Section 602 is troublesome,since it forces community-based organizations torely entirely on EPA’s enforcement of its regulations.

With respect to the standard of proof, in GuardiansAss’n vs. Civil Service Commission, decided in 1983,a five-member majority of the Supreme Court heldthat Section 601 requires proof of intentional discrimination. The Court also held that Title VI permitted federal agencies to promulgate regula-tions that prohibit disparate impacts or effects discrimination, and that the promulgation of suchregulations was properly within the scope of thestatute. However, in Alexander vs. Sandoval, decided in 2001, writing for the majority, JusticeAntonin Scalia expressed reservations regardingthe assumption that disparate impacts or effectsregulations are permissible. Justice Scalia said thatthere was considerable tension between the ruleenunciated in Guardians as well as in Regents ofUniversity of California vs. Bakke, decided in 1978,that Section 601 prohibits only intentional discrim-ination but that regulations promulgated underSection 602 may validly proscribe activities that havea disparate impact on racial groups, even thoughsuch activities are permitted under Section 601.

It, therefore, follows, that since Section 601 forbidsonly intentional discrimination, Section 602 shouldnot include a lesser standard of proof. Justice Scaliawent on to state, however, that the Court assumedfor the purposes of the Sandoval case that Section602 allows federal agencies to promulgate regula-tions that prohibit disparate impacts or effects. Thus,in light of the majority of the Court’s reservationsabout the assumptions regarding the disparate im-pacts/effects standard in Title VI regulations, it maybe necessary for Congress to consider amendingthe act and incorporating the disparate impacts/effects standard language into a new version of Sec-tion 601. Otherwise, Congress risks the real possi-bility that more than 45 years of Title VI civil rightscase law could be overturned if the legal questioncomes before the Supreme Court.

The present statutory framework does not allow forthe long-standing concerns of community-basedorganizations regarding the systemic environmentaland public health issues to be addressed. The environmental justice movement is based, first, on

the general principle that the protection of humanhealth from environmental harms and risks is exceedingly important, and, second, that minorityand/or low-income communities disproportionatelysuffer the ill effects of pollution. Environmental justice activists believe that U.S. civil rights law mandates equal protection of all persons from environmental harms and risks, regardless of race,national origin, or economic status.

When Congress passed the act, it was the culmi-nation of the growing and incessant demand ofmany people in this country that a nationwide offensive be launched by the federal governmentagainst racial discrimination. Congress, in its wisdom, set up an elaborate scheme to enforce theregulations in Section 602. As pointed out by theSupreme Court in Sandoval, it is the granting department or agency that is responsible for enforc-ing Title VI for its own programs and activities. Eachdepartment’s or agency’s regulations provide theenforcement mechanisms, such as the submissionof assurances of compliance and compliance reports. Periodic compliance reviews are specificallyrequired in agency and departmental regulations.

In addition, any individual may file a complaint, andagency regulations require a prompt response. Ifthere has been a failure to comply with the regula-tions, whether determined through a compliancereview or a complaint investigation, the recipient isinformed and an informal resolution is attempted. Ifthis cannot be accomplished, the federal assistancemay be suspended or terminated, based upon anexpress finding of a failure to comply, after a fulland fair opportunity to be heard. The agency headmust file a report with the appropriate House andSenate committees. And, the termination of fundingdoes not become effective until 30 days haveelapsed after the filing of the reports.

The Title VI enforcement process is primarily aboutfederal funding of a state or local government pro-gram and terminating that funding. It has nothingto do with the systemic environmental and publichealth concerns of community-based organiza-tions. The Latino children in the Angelita C. mattercontinued to be exposed disproportionately tomethyl bromide for more than a decade while thecomplaint languished in OCR. They had no recourse.


In Sandoval, the Supreme Court held that the fed-eral agency’s Section 602 regulations prohibitingdisparate impacts or effects do not create a right ofaction because Congress did not intend to create aprivate remedy to enforce regulations promulgatedunder the section. To fix this problem, Congressmay need to consider amending Title VI and grant-ing community-based organizations a private rightof action to file suit against a state or local govern-ment for failing to comply with the act.

Legislation Sought to Amend Title VIThe lack of a private right of action for enforcingSection 602 is troublesome, since it forces community-based organizations to rely entirely onEPA’s enforcement of its regulations. In Sandoval,the Court decided that private individuals may sueto enforce Section 601 and obtain injunctive reliefbut private individuals cannot sue to enforce Section602 and obtain injunctive relief and damages.Consequently, community-based environmentaljustice organizations have had to focus their energiesand limited resources on filing administrative com-plaints with EPA instead of bringing Title VI claimsin federal court. If Congress does not amend theact, community-based organizations will not beable to have their environmental and public healthconcerns addressed. Congress may need to createa free-standing private right of action to allow indi-viduals to enforce regulations promulgated underSection 602.

In a June 2010 report, entitled “Now is the Time:Environmental Injustice in the U.S. and Recom-mendations for Eliminating Disparities,” the highlyrespected Lawyers’ Committee for Civil RightsUnder Law recommended that the Obama ad-ministration seek legislation to amend Title VI toexplicitly provide for a private right of action thatwould entitle communities to obtain injunctive relief upon a showing that the actions of a state orlocal government agency program constitute asubstantial or significant factor in bringing aboutthe adverse, disparate impacts/effects.

Congress has previously amended Title VI as a result of a Supreme Court decision with which itdisagreed. As pointed out in Sandoval, there is theCivil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, where Congress expanded the term “program or activity”

to cover larger portions of the state and local gov-ernment agency receiving federal financial aid thatthe statute had previously covered. Congressamended the statute because it determined thatthe Court’s interpretation of that term was too narrowin Grove City College vs. Bell, decided in 1984.

Moreover, another reason for amending Title VI isthat it is an anomaly under the Civil Rights Act. Thereport of the Lawyers’ Committee points out thatboth Title VII (employment) and Title VIII (housing)of the act have long-standing, well-established disparate impacts or effects causes of action availableto private plaintiffs. And, that the same is true fornewer civil rights statutes, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, andthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Sandovalleft environmental justice community-based organ-izations without a cause of action for disparate impacts or effects discrimination, and, thus, leavesthese organizations without a remedy that is pro-vided for in virtually every other antidiscriminationstatutory scheme to address the systemic environ-mental and public health concerns that exist inmany communities throughout this country.

A number of civil rights legal scholars believe thatCongress should amend the act because its capacity to undermine discriminatory behavior andattitudes today is different from when it was enacted into law in 1964. They believe that Congressshould amend Title VI as a result of the Sandovaldecision. In the meantime, unless and until Con-gress acts, communities will continue to file administrative complaints, regardless of the limita-tions of the act. Indeed, Title VI is part of a processof enforcement, education, and implementation; itdoes not stand apart from the struggle by activistsfor environmental justice. Filing administrative com-plaints with EPA, while at the same time, seeking toamend and reform Title VI, are inextricably inter-twined. Title VI is not only important for its abilityto regulate the behavior of state and local govern-ment decision-makers, but also for the way anamended act could help address the long-standingenvironmental and public health concerns of beleaguered communities. em

A number of civil

rights legal scholars

believe that

Congress should

amend the act

because its capacity

to undermine

discriminatory

behavior

Journal of the Air & Waste

Welcomes Special IssuesSpecial issues of the Journal of the Air & Waste Management

provide a unique venue for grouping and publishing select papers from environmental conferences and research projects. They are a valuable resource to libraries and

the most current thinking on important environmental topics.

Visit tandfonline.com/UAWM

In print since 1951, the JA&WMA environmental journal in the world. The JA&WMA is widely recognized as one of the premier publica

Flexibility. The size of the JA&WMA can be scaled to accommodate the size of the conference/project and the number of manuscripts that pass the JA&WMA’s

Guest Editorial. The conference chair, project leader, or whoever else is serving as the Coor dinator is

manuscripts included and their importance to the understanding of the topic. Note: this could

paid by individual authors

Types of special issues or groupings


awma.org

em • summit highlights

Highlights from the 2012 FHWA–EPANorthern Transportation and Air Quality SummitThe U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) partners biennially with the U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and local transportation, planning, and environmental agencies to present

a meeting to discuss local transportation-related air quality problems and issues for a particular

region. This year’s meeting, the Northern Transportation Air Quality Summit (NTAQS 2012), was

held in Philadelphia, PA, August 7–8, and featured eight sessions covering 30 topic areas,

including legislative actions, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues, energy policies,

climate change, government programs to reduce emissions, and regional analysis of trans-

portation emissions and local highway project impacts. The following is a summary of the findings

from each of the eight sessions.

by Kevin Black, MartinKotsch, Michael Roberts,Greg Becoat, MelanieZeman, Joseph Rich,Mark Glaze, Paul Heishman, and MikeClaggett


Legislative UpdatesDiscussions included the reauthorization of theHighway Bill that funds the development and oper-ation of highway infrastructure throughout theUnited States. The “reauthorization” of the highwayprogram continues the support for highway andhighway-related projects and establishes thresholdsof federal spending on transportation projects. Thenew legislation, referred to as Moving Ahead forProgress in the 21st Century or MAP-21, providesfunding for projects and programs through Sep-tember 30, 2014. Ostensibly, MAP-21 reduces theoverall number of programs by combining relatedprograms with similar goals and reduces “earmarks”that were a common element in previous reautho-rizations. Several programs related to air qualitywere briefly outlined, including the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQ), transportation planning, accelerating proj-ect delivery, accelerating the environmental reviewprocess, and freight issues.

Presentations also covered regulations promulgatedby EPA, governing both ozone (O3) and fine partic-ulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. For O3,topics included revocation of the 1997 O3 standard,designating areas for the 2008 O3 standard, meth-ods for classifying nonattainment areas for the 2008O3 standard, and implementing the requirementsassociated with nonattainment designation. ThePM2.5 discussions centered on revisions to thePM2.5 standard, changes to the conformity rule, andguidance for performing PM hotspot analysis.

NEPA and PlanningAir quality is an issue common to both planningdecisions and environmental decisions. This is es-pecially true in areas designated as nonattainmentfor one or more pollutants. In these areas, trans-portation plans and programs, as well as individualprojects, must demonstrate that they are not going tocreate a new problem, worsen an existing problem,or delay the attainment of a standard being vio-lated. One issue that has caused concern involvesthe delay in getting projects completed. To address

this concern, an initiative from FHWA known as“Every Day Counts,” which focuses attention on theplanning and environmental linkage, allows projectsto move more quickly to completion, thus alleviatingcongestion and reducing air pollution.

Important to the planning process is determiningtravel demand. This is accomplished through models, which identify accessibility and systemsand relate those factors to travel behavior. A systemusing “tax parcel” data to enhance the informationcurrently used in making decisions on travel be-havior was discussed. Related to this travel activity,especially as it relates to air quality, was a discussionof the increase in freight volume carried on U.S.highways. Freight is often carried by diesel vehi-cles, which generally emit higher emissions of PMand nitrogen oxides (NOx) than passenger cars.Strategies to reduce diesel emissions outlined inthe FHWA publication, Freight and Air QualityHandbook, were also discussed.

EnergyIt was noted that the United States leads the worldin the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs).However, it was also noted that the current strategyfor addressing climate change has not caught onwith the U.S. public. Opinion polls have indicatedthat “climate change” is very low on the public’s listof concerns, whereas the economy and jobs con-sistently rank at the top of the list. Refocusing attention on the economic benefits of energystrategies would have the dual benefit of gainingthe public’s support, while simultaneously supportingthe climate change mitigation strategy of reducingGHG emissions.

The need to better understand energy usage in thetransportation setting and programs that workwere discussed. The perspectives of a major city(New York City) and a major metropolitan plan-ning organization (the Delaware Valley RegionalPlanning Commission, DVRPC) were given, including their experiences with converting conventionally powered vehicles (both public and

Kevin Black and PaulHeishman are with the U.S.Federal Highway Administra-tion (FHWA) Resource Center, Baltimore, MD; Martin Kotsch and GregBecoat are with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Region 3,Philadelphia, PA; MichaelRoberts is with the FHWAResource Center in Atlanta,GA; Melanie Zeman iswith the EPA Region 2 Office in New York City, NY;Joseph Rich is with theFHWA New York DivisionOffice, Albany, NY; MarkGlaze is with the FHWAHeadquarters Office, Wash-ington, DC; and MikeClaggett is with the FHWAResource Center in Santa Fe, NM. E-mail:[email protected].


private/locally owned) to alternative fuels. The needfor new energy paradigms was also discussed.“Electricity” should be considered as a fuel type,just like coal, as it represents 60% of the country’senergy usage today. The concepts of sustainability,energy versus power, and efficiency also needreevaluation.

Climate ChangeClimate change continues to be a topic that occupiesthe headlines. Several presentations were made onvarious subtopic issues associated with climatechange. The impacts of a changing climate, or atleast weather extremes, and the vulnerability oftransportation infrastructure were discussed. It wasnoted that impact assessments needed to be con-ducted that include “influences,” such as changes intemperature and precipitation, as well as associatedphenomena of droughts and other extremeweather problems.

Once potential influence conditions are assessed,“tools” can be used to forecast possible scenariosand the extent of these scenario impacts. Severalpresentations discussed these tools, including oneused for determining the amount of GHGs gener-ated by vehicles: the MOVES model. Guidance onusing MOVES for developing GHG inventorieswas explained. Another tool, the Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT)developed by FHWA, provides information on

conducting policy evaluations for land use, trans-portation planning, and traffic pricing among otherconsiderations to develop mitigation strategies.EERPAT is designed to work in conjunction withthe MOVES model.

Another tool, this one developed by EPA andknown as the Travel Efficiency Assessment Method(TEAM), assesses travel efficiency improvementsand how they can reduce the emission of GHGs.TEAM, like EERPAT, works in conjunction withMOVES to assess the impacts of reduced vehicletravel. This session also discussed the InfrastructureVoluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST),which is a policy tool using system planning criteria,project development criteria, and operation andmaintenance criteria.

Federal, State, and Local Strategiesfor Reducing Vehicle EmissionsProgram and policies have been developed by alllayers of government to assist in improving airquality. To provide some insight into some of thevarious programs available for reducing air pollu-tion, several presentations covered federal, state,and local strategies to improve air quality. Amongthe programs discussed were the National CleanDiesel Campaign, administered through DieselCollaboratives (affiliated with regional air quality organizations); and the Congestion Mitigation andAir Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), administered by FHWA. Both initiatives providefunds for programs (e.g., anti-idling) and products(e.g., diesel retrofitting of diesel particle filters) focused on diesel engines. Through these fundingsources, states, for instance, can take credit formaking use of these program funds in their stateimplementation plans (SIPs).

Some discussion highlighted the increasing role ofemissions from the transportation of freight by various modes, as shown in Figure 1. One presen-tation discussed strategies for reducing emissionsavailable to state and local governments, includingactions such as placing transportation control meas-ures in their SIPs, which require implementationand transportation emission reduction measuresthat are enacted on a voluntary, nonbinding basis.Another discussed the different technologies avail-able, such as diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel

Figure 1. Increasing emissions resulting fromcommercial shipping, muchof which comes from dieselengines.


particulate filters, and programs such as anti-idlingrestrictions. An enforcement program implementedin one state, showing how authorities “discovered”improper and illegal methods used by vehicle own-ers to avoid emission inspection of their vehicle,was also discussed

Regional AnalysisThis session discussed the use of MOVES, the required model used for development of SIPs, con-formity analysis, and transportation project analysis.MOVES develops emission factors or emission inventories, which state and local planning agenciesuse to assess the air quality improvements in theirregion. In this session, EPA provided a status of itsplans to update the MOVES model, noting that anew version would be released in 2013.

FHWA and the Volpe Center provided preliminaryresults of a regional-scale sensitivity analysis con-ducted on MOVES to determine the parametershaving the greatest influence on the models emis-sion rates. Parameters tested included temperature,humidity, ramp fraction, age distribution, analysisyear, and average speed distribution. Providing areal-world example of using MOVES and the results generated by some assumptions for theseparameters, a metropolitan planning organizationnoted the impacts that could result from assumedage distributions.

Since vehicle assumptions are critical to assessingthe pollution generated by any given fleet, anotherpresentation discussed methods for generatingmore accurate estimates for planning purposes.This presentation noted that the TRANSIMSmodel can provide more locally specific vehiclepopulations important for determining where vehicle “start” and “evaporation” emissions occur—two of the largest contributors to vehicle emissions,as can be seen in Figure 2.

Assessing vehicle locations and trajectories are necessary for accurate emission modeling results.Different types of traffic projection tools, includingtransportation planning models, traffic simulationmodels, congestion management, and the federalHighway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS),were discussed, noting the strengths and limitationsof these various methods of collecting data and

what methods are useful (or required) in certainsituations.

Project AnalysisPresentations were made on general guidance forthese analyses, issues related to developing inputs,and a potential option to evaluate a specific plannedproject relative to a generalized project. One reviewedEPA guidance for project-level PM analysis. Thissummary described the individual components, including emission estimates, meteorological datafor dispersion modeling, and consideration of back-ground levels and other sources. The end result is adetermination of whether a project would exceedthe limits set in the National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) at any nearby receptor.

Another reviewed the data input requirements tocomplete the project analysis, with more detail onthe definition of “links”. In part, links are set to reflect the roadway geometry, but changes in vehicleactivity (e.g., average speed, idling) should also berepresented.

A third presentation reviewed a regulatory optionknown as a “categorical finding,” which allowsFHWA to define general categories of projects withassumed operating conditions, to perform analysesfor these cases, and to make a determination thatthese cases meet the hot-spot conformity require-ments. Project sponsors can then compare a givenproject to a similar category in the FHWA finding,and if their project is comparable (or smaller) in

Figure 2. The relative contributions of differenttypes of emissions: exhaust,start, and evaporative.

More InformationThe biennial NTAQS meeting continues to provide a forum fordiscussion of transportation-relatedair quality issues. The topics sum-marized above will be consideredfor the next NTAQS meeting in2014. For further information onthis meeting or to view materialsfrom the 2012 meeting, visit theWeb site www.dvrpc.org.

32 em january 2013 awma.org

scope and magnitude, they can make a conform-ity determination based on the FHWA analysisrather than completing detailed, project-specificanalysis. FHWA is working with EPA to develop anappropriate method to support categorical findings.It is unclear whether this work will be complete be-fore the end of the grace period when quantitativehot-spot analysis will be required for PM (Decem-ber 2012). For carbon monoxide, it is possible thatthe analysis will be complete prior to the require-ment to use MOVES by that same deadline.

Regional Agencies ForumThe final session of the conference provided an opportunity for state Departments of Transportation(DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations(MPOs) to present the challenges they face in implementing federal programs and requirements,as a part of their planning function.

First from the state perspective, two DOTs notedthat multiple conformity “triggers,” which can require DOTs to undertake repeated regionalanalyses of on-road emissions for actions that theDOTs have no control over (e.g., a revised NAAQS,new emissions model), cause DOTs to have to perform conformity analyses every year rather thanthe required every four years, costing the state significantly in terms of it resources. In a relatedissue, DOTs stated that SIPs mobile budgets and

conformity analyses can be done using differentemissions models (e.g., MOBILE6 and MOVES);however, since conformity must be done using thelatest model once grace periods expire, the newermodel may project larger emissions to a given areathan the emissions budgets developed for the SIPusing the older MOBILE model and this could beproblematic for the state.

MPOs were next in presenting their concerns andissues. Two MPOs noted that vehicle registrationdata assumptions have been problematic, sincemany mobile budget assumptions were based onconditions and changes in vehicle fleets before themost recent economic downturn. Since the economicdownturn, vehicle fleet turnover has been slower,resulting in older vehicles remaining on the roadlonger and thus higher emissions than previouslyprojected. Another issue discussed by the MPOrepresentatives concerned the CMAQ programand how local agencies could get appropriateshares of those funds. State DOTs often distributethese funds as desired, which may not meet theneeds of the local agencies.

One overall consensus apparent from all presenterswere concerns for new planning/air quality impacts,which may ensue as the result of the new highwayreauthorization MAP-21. em

Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge the many organizations responsible forthis meeting, including theU.S. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency,Delaware Valley RegionalPlanning Commission, Wilmington MetropolitanCouncil, Pennsylvania De-partment of Transportation,and New Jersey Transit Authority, for their support.

Copyright 2013 Air & Waste Management Association


em • washington report

Compiled by Mark Williams, BNA Bloomberg, www.bna.com. Note: All amounts in U.S. dollars.

Electronic Waste Export Studyon Track for February ReleaseThe U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has confirmedthat its broad investigation into used electronics exportation is“on track” and said it plans to deliver a final report to the Officeof the U.S. Trade Representative in February.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk asked ITC to initiate the investigation (No. 332-528) into the current market, charac-teristics, and practices of the electronic waste (or e-waste) exportindustry in a letter dated January 9, 2012. Kirk expressed concerns over unsafe handling practices of e-waste in the developing world and said the study would inform how theU.S. government addresses those environmental concerns.

Advocacy groups earlier this year raised concerns about thedraft version of the survey sent to e-waste handlers. WalterAlcorn, vice president of environmental affairs and industrysustainability at the Consumer Electronics Association, said hehas been told the investigation is proceeding smoothly andsaid he welcomed its findings. em

Renewable Energy Systems Installed at60 Sites under RE-Powering America

Renewable energy systems have been installed at 60 sites oncontaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites in 25 states asidentified by an EPA document. Of the 60 installed systems,49 are solar photovoltaic electricity generating systems. Therealso are seven wind energy systems, one biomass system, onegeothermal system, one hydropower plant, and one combinedsolar-wind system, EPA said in its report on the RE-PoweringAmerica’s Land initiative.

Through RE-Powering America, EPA is promoting the use ofpotentially contaminated lands and landfills for renewable energy generation through a combination of tailored redevel-opment tools for communities and developers, as well as site-specific technical support. Categorized by site ownership, 24installations are private, 10 are federal, 12 are municipal, eightare “other,” two are state sites, and four are of unknown ownership, EPA said. Ten of the sites fall under EPA’s ResourceConservation and Recovery Act program; eight are federal facilities; 19 are brownfields; 10 are landfills; eight are Super-fund sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act; three are unknown; one is alandfill buffer; and one is superfund removal, EPA said.

RE-Powering America initiative, are suitable for solar projectsand a lesser number for wind energy generation, the agencysaid. RE-Powering America’s Land initiative was launched in2008, when EPA put an interactive mapping tool online foruse by prospective site developers and others. em

Companies Told to Prepare for Temperature RiseCompanies should prepare for the global temperature to rise 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, accordingto a new report. Current rates of reductions of carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product in major economies,or carbon intensity decreases, show the world is headed for at least 6 degrees of warming, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Too Late for Two Degrees? Low Carbon Economy Index 2012.

Carbon intensity needs to decrease by an average of 5.1% per year for the next 39 consecutive years to limitglobal warming to the international goal of 2 degrees Celsius, a rate of reduction that has never been achieved,the firm said. “Governments’ ambitions to limit warming to 2 [degrees Celsius] appear highly unrealistic,” Price-waterhouse Coopers stated on its Web site. The index evaluates the rate of decarbonization of the global econ-omy that is needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Global carbon intensity decreased between 2000and 2011 by around 0.8% per year, according to the report. Carbon intensity decreased by 0.7% in 2011. Theglobal economy needs to cut carbon intensity by 5.1% every year from now to 2050 to meet the two-degreegoal, which will require “sustained and unprecedented reductions,” Pricewaterhouse Coopers said.

Even doubling current rates of decarbonization would lead to a 6 degree global temperature rise. To get a more than 50% chance of meeting the two-degree goal will require a sixfold improvement in current rates of decarbonization, the report says.. em


awma.org

em • competitive strategy

With real estate, it is all about location, location, location. With sustainable development and socialresponsibility, it is all about timing, timing, timing, to wit:

• What did this company know and when did itdisclose this information?• What have other companies done and when didthis company employ similar industry practices?

For example, if the typical corporate sustainabilityreport published today had been released in 1992,it would have been considered one of the best inthe world, attracting accolades far and wide. Today,these reports are expected, standardized via theGlobal Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines,and regarded by stakeholders a minimum level oftransparency. The same perspective applies to havingin place an ISO 14000 management system or its

equivalent. Indeed, there is a set of practices aboveand beyond compliance that is considered the minimum for responsible corporations.

Closely related is a company’s speed to which it responds to changing external dynamics:

• Does management consistently take a wait-and-see position and then react (or overreact) to anissue only after it can no longer be avoided?

• Does management anticipate future trends andget ahead of the curve through proactive steps?

• Does management attempt to delay the imple-mentation of clearly needed new industry stan-dards or regulations?

• Does the company’s corporate culture discouragethe bringing forward of negative news or recom-mendations assumed to not be in keeping withupper management’s beliefs or wishes?

by Richard MacLean

Richard MacLean is director of RichardMacLean & Associates,LLC, a management consulting firm located inPrescott, AZ, and executivedirector of the Center forEnvironmental Innovation(CEI), a university-basednonprofit research organi-zation. He can be reachedvia e-mail at [email protected]. Formore information, visit his Web site at www.RMacLeanLLC.com.

Timing Is EverythingBeing viewed as a respected leader or an irresponsible corporation is as much about timing as anything else.


attributes. And so they should, since these messageseducate the public as to the importance of these attributes. What I find amusing is the transition thatoccurred in the mid-2000s when leaders (such asGE with Ecomagination) inspired scores of CEOs todemand similar product positioning of their wares.In rapid response, some companies colored prod-ucts green, used less packaging, and changed topackaging or products made from recycled or post-consumer waste. Easy, quick hits, but the questionis, “Where’s the follow through on the really sub-stantive issues?”

Green marketing that will not produce a backlashof claims of greenwashing takes a very deliberateand well-thought-through strategy. Typically, thebest strategy is one that emphasizes both the eco-nomic value and the positive societal impacts, andone that understates, not overstates, its importancefor a sustainable planet. Stakeholders know thatcompanies are in business to make profits. But if acompany tries to significantly shift its image basedon a stream of new programs and actions, then itmust have the appropriate policies, standards,goals, and guidelines to back this effort. In otherwords, the timing must be right: first get one’s actin order and then, and only then, publicize.

For example, BP went on a major public relationscampaign with “Beyond Petroleum” in early 2000at the uptick of the sustainability marketing wave.Because the company did not have the underpin-nings to back this up, they literally got burnt afterthe 2005 Texas City refinery explosion, the 2006Prudhoe Bay spill in Alaska, and the 2010 Deep-water Horizon well explosion. The multimillion-dollar Beyond Petroleum marketing campaign wascompletely discredited.

Addressing the Timing IssueChanging a company’s strategy and direction is amajor challenge. If there is no crisis afoot, whychange? Or more specifically, why get ahead of thecompetition in areas that are perceived to costmoney and not immediately add to the bottom line?

Some historical perspective is in order. Making thecase for more secure hazardous waste disposal in1970 was a challenge since very cheap and perfectlylegal alternatives were available, such as RussellBliss trucking—you may recall that Russell Bliss was

• Does management actively encourage newapproaches?

• Does the management seek contrary views andopinions by engaging in stakeholder dialogs?

Results Not SlogansThe answers to the preceding questions may deter-mine, to a large extent, how a company is viewedby external stakeholders in the long term. The play-ing field is very dynamic, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and regulatoryagencies are constantly accessing companies, notby the soothing words conveyed in their valuestatements, core beliefs, policies, and sustainabilityreports, but by progress meeting measurable andsubstantive commitments.

For some so-called sustainability leaders, theirheadline-grabbing actions can be quite trivial com-pared to the magnitude of their overall environ-mental footprint. For example, some major retailerspromote mass consumerism via aggressive mar-keting and yet they are still viewed by the publicand even NGOs as sustainability leaders. There appears to be a cognitive dissonance in the mindsof executives who run multibillion-dollar sales andmarketing programs encouraging people to con-sume more—a basic sustainability issue—and at thesame time believe that utilizing something asminor as eco-friendly packaging makes the com-pany a sustainability leader.

Yes, implementing a stream of relatively minor, butnewly inspired actions has proven to be an effectiveand powerful way of improving the brand. Somecompanies have even claimed credit for the sustain-ability demands they place, not on themselves, butthe requirements they dictate to their suppliers. Again,it may do relatively little to move the needle on thecompany’s total environmental footprint. Every littlebit helps, of course, but in the grand scheme of thingsprojecting a leadership image based on minor actionsis a risky undertaking. There is a delicate balance be-tween demonstrating a real corporate commitmentand putting forward greenwash.

Back to the timing issue. The concept of green marketing was cutting edge in the 1990s; today, itis institutionalized. If there are ecological benefitsto products today, most marketing and sales departments will almost always point out these

The concept of

green marketing

was cutting edge

in the 1990s;

today, it is

institutionalized.


the trucker who oiled roads and was at the centerof the infamous Times Beach ecological disaster inthe early 1970s. In retrospect, the Times Beach,Love Canal, and W.R. Grace contamination disasterswere all avoidable. Forty years hence, some of thecurrent, perfectly legal product, manufacturing, recycling, and disposal practices may be similarlyviewed with 20/20 hindsight.

In his book, Getting Green Done,1 Auden Schendlerexplores some of the current challenges in con-vincing management that green is better today. Itis one of the few books that clearly lays out thechallenges of sustainability professionals in man-aging change. Far too much published literature isdevoted to why green is good and why the scienceis compelling, but very little is written on how towork within organizations to affect change. Howdo you, for example, convince management to buy

more expensive LED lighting when there arecheaper energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs?

Strategic and scenario planning are useful tools toexamine timing and change. These are involvedprocesses and there is insufficient space in this column to explore the various (and numerous) options available. But there are also very simple approaches. One of the most basic is to stop lec-turing management and instead ask very pointedand well-structured questions to get managementthinking of alternative approaches.

I am currently writing a book on the learnings fromleading professionals in how to work within organ-izations to affect change. I’d be interested in yourthoughts and case studies regarding approachesto take and those to avoid. em

Reference1. Schendler, A. Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution; PublicAffairs, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P.Jackson has appointed two engineers, both long-time membersof the Association, to serve as chairs of two independent FederalAdvisory Committees: the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) andthe Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Dr. DavidAllen, an internationally recognized engineer specializing in airquality will serve as the SAB Chair, and Dr. H. Christopher Frey, anenvironmental engineer expert in quantitative methods for dealingwith variability and uncertainty, will serve as the CASAC Chair.They each will serve a two-year term.

“At EPA, using the best science available as we work to protecthuman health and the environment is critical. I’m honored to appoint Dr. David Allen and Dr. H. Christopher Frey, who will bringtheir expertise and unique talents to the helm of the SAB andCASAC, respectively, and help us ensure that science remains thebackbone of all we do,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.“We’re grateful to Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, outgoing SAB chair,and Dr. Jonathan Samet, outgoing CASAC chair, for their dedicatedservice and leadership over the past four years.”

Dr. David Allen is the Gertz Regents Professor of Chemical Engineering and the Director of the Center for Energy and Envi-ronmental Resources at the University of Texas (UT) at Austin. AsDirector of the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources atUT–Austin and as Director of the Air Quality Research Program of theState of Texas, he brings extensive leadership experience to the job.

Dr. H. Christopher Frey is Professor of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University inRaleigh, NC. He directs a multidisciplinary research program inthe broad area of environmental systems analysis, including development and demonstration of quantitative methods for riskassessment, technology evaluation, and air pollutant emissions. Dr.Frey is a past president of the Society for Risk Analysis.

The SAB (www.epa.gov/sab) and the CASAC (www.epa.gov/casac)are independently chartered Federal Advisory Committees com-posed of external scientists and engineers. The SAB provides advice to the EPA Administrator on the scientific and technical information being used or proposed as the basis for EPA decisions.The CASAC provides advice to the EPA Administrator on the tech-nical bases for EPA’s standards for criteria air pollutants. em

EPA Appoints A&WMA Members as Heads ofTwo Independent Science Advisory Committees

em • association news


em • canadian report

Canadian Report is compiled with excerpts from EcoLog News and the EcoCompliance.ca newsletter, both published by EcoLog Information Resources Group, a divisionof BIG Information Product LP. For more Canadian environmental information, visit www.ecolog.com. Note: All amounts in Canadian dollars.

Ontario Climate Change Strategies Dominate Progress ReportOn the heels of one of Ontario’s hottest, driest summers on record, theprovince’s progress with the fight against climate change is detailed in anew 49-page report from the Ministry of the Environment. The ClimateVision—Climate Change Progress Report provides little in the way of newinformation. Instead, it focuses on recapping Ontario’s strategies andgoals under the direction of Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment.

Currently, Ontario has the second lowest per-capita greenhouse gasemissions in Canada—approximately half the national average, the report says. Ontario’s climate change plans have expanded significantly over the last decade. A primary focus of the Climate Vision report is to revisit Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan, whichaims over its 20-year lifespan to build a clean energy future for the province, and create green jobs in the process. Key parts of theplan include phasing out coal, investing in hydroelectricity, and committing to nuclear energy.

In terms of forecasts, the Climate Vision report offers an optimistic view of Ontario reaching its climate change targets. It estimatesthe province is likely to meet 91% of its target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2014. Ontariohas set targets to reduce its carbon footprint from direct operations by 27% below 2006 levels by 2020. em

Canada Plans Tougher Fuel EfficiencyRegulationsThe Canadian government has proposed new fuel efficiencyregulations for passenger vehicles and light trucks for modelyears 2017 and beyond.

In a November 27, 2012, announcement by Environment Min-ister Peter Kent, vehicle manufacturers will have to cut emissionsby an average of 5% per year, every year from 2017 until 2025.That means that cars rolling off the line in 2025 will produce almost 50% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and consume upto 50% less fuel than 2008 models.

Kent said the improved fuel efficiency is expected to save Canadi-ans upwards of $900 in fuel costs per year, per car, while reducinggreenhouse gases by 162 megatons between 2017 and 2025.

The proposed regulations will align Canada with the recentchanges made to U.S. fuel efficiency legislation. Kent said theseproposed regulations are the latest step in the Canadian govern-ment’s sector-by-sector approach to reducing greenhouse gases.Canada’s overall climate change strategy is to reduce greenhousegas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. Canada’s fuelefficiency regulations will be finalized in 2013. em

Vancouver First to Use Recyclablesfor Asphalt RoadsVancouver motorists will soon be driving their cars over recycledplastics. City officials say the plastic materials will be used in acutting-edge, wax-like asphalt mix that will comprise approxi-mately 1% of the total asphalt batch for Vancouver roads inBritish Columbia.

The custom mix helps reduce viscosity when laying the asphalt,city officials say. Although it’s a more expensive process, the spe-cial mix uses 20% less fuel than the traditional hot mix method,and is expected to produce savings over time. The new specialmix has more temperature versatility too. It can be applied attemperatures 40 °C cooler than traditional hot mix.

Vancouver is testing out the mix in several parts of the city. Cur-rently, the recycled plastic mix is sourced from GreenMantra inToronto, but the city hopes to produce it locally in the future. em


em • pm file

When I reflect on the few—yet significant—workingrelationship problems I’ve observed over the years,I’ve found they trace to shortcomings in expecta-tions concerning competence or values:

• Competence Expectations. We believe that theperson lacks either a management or technicalskill set that we view is essential for the work.Working with the person frustrates us because wefeel we are spending too much time managingperformance shortcomings. We are concernedthat we will have to take on additional work or involve another team member to overcome theweakness. But in any case, we are concerned that

our work with the person will compromise thebudget, the schedule, or team morale.

• Values Expectations. The person may be tech-nically and managerially competent, but there issomething about his or her approach that eitherannoys us or we find distrustful. The person exploits the gray areas, taking advantage of oth-ers or creating situations that produce personalbenefits at the expense of others. If there were aclear violation of a rule, policy, or law, the situationwould be easy to address. Instead, we’re drawninto situations where rules are open to interpre-tation. Most people seem to understand the unwritten rules, but this person doesn’t. We areconcerned that this person’s behavior will compro-mise team morale, alienate others, undermine trustand confidence, or worse, lead to legal problems.

Personal AttentionIt would be great to “depersonalize” the situationand work through the issues in a distant and objec-tive manner as popular psychology suggests. Butexpectations regarding competence and values arepersonal matters that demand our personal attention.

In a recent article posted on the Harvard BusinessReview Blog Network,1 Peter Bergman explainsthat we should examine the reasons we don’t likesomeone. While we may not always dislike thepeople we have difficulties in working with, his advice is still relevant. Bergman suggests that welook inside ourselves to see if there is somethingin our own character or behavior that we find disappointing that is reflected in the character orbehavior of the person we dislike. I suggest that we dig deeper: Is there something in that person’scharacter or behavior that brings out a personalcharacteristic or behavior in us that may not bepresent in the other person, but that we find trou-bling or disappointing?

At some point in our careers as project managers we will encounter people who are difficult to

work with. Sometimes, these people work well with others. Other times, they don’t seem to work

well with anyone. In either case, we can only control our behavior, which through an unfair

application of mathematics, makes us 100% responsible for management of the relationship.

by David Elam

David L. Elam, Jr., CIH,CMQ/OE, PMP, is principalconsultant with Summa Consultants Inc. E-mail: [email protected] electronic files of this column and his other writings,please visit his Web site at www.summaconsultants.com.

Managing Expectationsto Manage Relationships

Competence

Values


It can be tedious and challenging work to explorethese issues from the perspective of 100% respon-sibility, but I believe it pays off by leading to one ofthree outcomes:

! Our expectations of others reveal our personalflaws. While we should set high expectationsfor others, we should make sure that expecta-tions are clear and supported by project andorganizational management systems and notdriven by personal biases. We’ll end up beingbetter project managers and will be better po-sitioned to shape our organizations for success.

@ Our expectations of others provide opportu-nities for all to grow. If our expectations arevalid and supported by project and organiza-tional management systems, we can help oth-ers become more competent and make bettervalue judgments. In the end, everyone benefits.

# Our expectations of others eliminate obstaclesto success. Valid expectations, and our dedica-tion to them, reveal the actions and motivationsof those who exploit system uncertainties forpersonal gain. These individuals, unless theyare prepared to change and grow, will move onto other organizations or projects where incom-petence or questionable behavior are tolerated.

Project Management: Human Resources and CommunicationsFortunately, the project management disciplineprovides an excellent system for working throughthese issues. The Project Management Institute’s AGuide to the Project Management Body of Knowl-edge2 establishes nine knowledge areas. Two ofthese, human resources and communications, pro-vide specific processes that support a systematicand reasoned approach to heading off or resolvingproblems with difficult people.

Human ResourcesProject managers are responsible for acquiring theteam, developing it, and managing it. Sometimes,we forget the development responsibility, expect-ing team members to be fully competent, often inmultiple areas. If we’ve taken the time to properlyscope the project and determine resource needs,we’ll understand the skill set the project needs. As

we staff the project, we can evaluate the compe-tencies of staff against the required skill set andtake steps to overcome deficiencies through an ap-propriate development plan. For example, our proj-ect may require a technical expert with commandof the subject and the ability to communicate ef-fectively at a public hearing. Our team membermay have the technical skills, but lack the presen-tation skills required for the role. In this case, weshore up our expert’s presentation skills by buildingtime into the schedule for rehearsal and presenta-tion skills coaching. This approach recognizescompetency issues at the outset, allows us to ad-dress them in advance before they become prob-lems, and supports the development of the individual and the organization.

CommunicationsProject managers are responsible for identifyingand understanding stakeholders, managing stake-holder expectations, sharing information, and re-porting information. These responsibilities, whiletypically focused on the technical aspects of theproject, also encompass the softer issues like ethicsand values. Regular and formal communicationswith stakeholders in the form of project instructionsand progress reports can eliminate problems thatarise from both competence and value expecta-tions (see “PM File: Simple Communication ToolsDrive Project Success,” EM, April 2007, pp.30–31). Project instructions can be used to clarifyexpectations and prevent people from exploitingsystem uncertainties for personal benefit. Similarly,progress reports provide a framework for promptlydocumenting and addressing deviations from ex-pectations. While these tools can be used retro-spectively for defensive purposes, their primaryvalue is informing the team and keeping expecta-tions at the forefront so they don’t have to be usedfor defensive purposes.

Relying on basic project management principles allows us to manage relationships by managing expectations. By taking 100% responsibility formanaging the relationship, we’ll head off problems,build better relationships, improve competency,and advance integrity. em

References1. Bergman P. “What to Do When You Have to Work with Someone You Don’t Like”; Harvard Business Review Blog Network, September 12, 2012;

http://blogs.hbr.org/.2. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 4th Edition; Project Management Institute, 2008.


em • news focus

Need to ‘Hit Reset Button’“We see the urgent need to basically start over, hitthe reset button,” Greco said during a November27 conference call with reporters. “Let’s scrap theRFS and move forward with a different construct.”

While Greco said repealing the standard will be apriority in the 113th Congress, he did not specifywhich lawmakers might take the lead on the issue.Still, Greco noted that 26 senators asked EPA towaive the renewable fuel standard requirementsover the summer because of drought. EPA deniedsimilar requests from several states November 16.

Supporters of the RFS immediately fired back. TomBuis, chief executive officer of the trade groupGrowth Energy, said in a statement: “Special inter-ests will stop at nothing to discredit the success ofrenewable fuels created right here at home to ensure their lock on the fuels market goesunchecked. They continue to protect the statusquo, ensuring our addiction to foreign oil and pre-venting consumers a choice at the pump.”

Bid to ‘Dismantle’ Fuel Standard OpposedThe Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO),another trade group, also said it opposes API’s efforts to “dismantle” the RFS. “Since the inceptionof the RFS, API has used every regulatory and legalploy available to delay and block implementation ofthe law,” Brent Erickson, BIO’s executive vice pres-ident, said in a statement. “Since these efforts appear to have failed, they are now mounting apublic relations effort to convince lawmakers to repeal the RFS.”

However, the consulting firm ClearView EnergyPartners, said the RFS “has been ripe for reformfor some time” and that Congress is expected tomodify it over the next two years. “The prepon-derance of viable reform proposals next year willprobably include portfolio expansions that wouldinclude other fuels and technologies and mandateredefinitions to ‘right-size’ [RFS] volumetric targets,”the group said in a November 27 research note.—By Ari Natter, Bloomberg BNA em

The American Petroleum Institute (API) said it willseek a repeal of the renewable fuel standard (RFS),a change in position for the country’s largest oil andgas lobbying group, which previously called for theprogram to be reformed.

“We believe the renewable fuel standard is unwork-able and should be repealed,” said Robert Greco,API’s downstream group director. “There is a fun-damental flaw in the enabling statute, so the onlyway to fix it is to scrap the law and start over.”

While the organization has long complained aboutthe RFS, which requires the nation’s motor fuelsupply to include set amounts of ethanol, Grecosaid the looming “blend wall” was one of the mainfactors in hardening the institute’s position.

The blend wall, which could occur as soon as nextyear, is the point at which the amount of ethanolrequired by the RFS exceeds the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s (EPA) allowable ethanolcontent in gasoline. Other concerns, such as fraud-ulent Renewable Identification Numbers, a com-ponent of a renewable fuel credit trading program,and a requirement to blend cellulosic ethanol, whichis not yet commercially available, also influencedAPI’s position, Greco said.

The EPA Inspector General recently an-nounced that it will begin “preliminaryresearch” to examine the agency’s rolein managing the renewable fuels credittrading program that has been plagued

by fraud.

API to Seek Repeal of Renewable Fuel Standard


Two industry groups have filed lawsuits challengingEPA’s volume requirements for biomass-based dieselfuel in 2013 (American Petroleum Institute vs. EPA,D.C. Cir., No. 12-1465, 11/26/12; American Fuel &Petrochemical Manufacturers vs. EPA, D.C. Cir., No.12-1464, 11/21/12).

The American Petroleum Institute (API) filled its petition for review of the rule November 26 in theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit, five days after the American Fuel & Petro-chemical Manufacturers (AFPM) filed its lawsuit inthe same court.

EPA’s final rule, released September 14, mandatesthe use of 1.28 billion gallons of biodiesel in 2013,a 28% increase from the 2012 requirement, according to API (77 Fed. Regist. 59,458).

API and AFPM also filed administrative petitions ask-ing that EPA reconsider the rule. “EPA’s overzealous2013 biodiesel mandate is unworkable, could raisethe costs of making diesel fuel, and should be re-duced,” Bob Greco, API group downstream director,said in a statement. The institute also is calling for therepeal of the federal renewable fuel standard, whichsets out requirements for most renewable fuels in themotor vehicle fuel supply (see related story opposite).

Although the Energy Independence and SecurityAct of 2007 (Pub. L. No. 110-140) set requirementsfor other renewable fuels, the law did not mandatea specific biomass-based diesel volume for 2013.Instead, the act required EPA to determine the appropriate amount after consulting with the Energyand Agriculture departments.

Fraudulent Fuel Credits Cited“In its final rule, EPA admitted the costs of increasingthe biodiesel volume requirement for 2013 out-weighed the benefits by as much as $425 million,”Greco said. “Furthermore, fraudulent biofuel creditsthat have plagued the system since last year andhave yet to be resolved could inhibit industry’s abilityto meet EPA’s higher biodiesel mandate.”

According to API, EPA has uncovered more than140 million invalid renewable fuel credits, known

as Renewable Identification Numbers, generatedby three biodiesel companies, representing between5% and 12% of the biodiesel market.

“Because EPA failed to give this issue any consid-eration in the final rule … API is asking the agencyto reconsider the 1.28 billion gallon standard forbiomass-based diesel in 2013,” the group, which isthe nation’s largest oil and gas lobbying group, saidin its administrative petition.

An EPA spokeswoman said the agency would review the petition and respond accordingly.

In an October 31 draft quality assurance plan, theagency said it was considering setting ongoing andquarterly monitoring requirements for ethanol pro-ducers to certify the validity of credits generatedfor compliance with the renewable fuel standard.

In asking for administrative reconsideration of the2013 volume requirement, AFPM said increasingthe biomass-based diesel requirement could curtailinvestment in other advanced biofuels and increasegreenhouse gas emissions, the group said.

“EPA’s own data estimates that the cost of increas-ing the biomass-based diesel mandate will add between $253 million and $381 million to con-sumers’ transportation fuel bill in 2013,” AFPMPresident Charles Drevna said in a statement. “TheU.S. economy is still struggling, and this increasewill hurt the millions who rely on transportationfuels.”

EPA Says Volume Can Be MetEPA said in the final rule that biodiesel producers,which provide most of the biomass-based dieselfuel, are already producing 1.3 billion gallons offuel a year and have sufficient production capacityto meet the volume requirement.

EPA estimates the rule will provide $41 million in en-ergy security benefits and between $19 million and$52 million in air quality benefits. The rule is expectedto increase the price of diesel by less than 1 cent pergallon. —By Ari Natter, Bloomberg BNA em

Petroleum Industry Groups Challenge 2013 Requirements for Biomass Fuel


News Focus is compiled from the current edition of Environment Reporter, published by the Bureau of National Affairs Inc. (Bloomberg BNA). For more information, visitwww.bna.com.

Agreement Sets Deadlines for AirToxics Rules for Brick, Ceramics Kilns

Advertisers’ IndexEM Advertiser (www) Page

Lakes Environmental Software Inc. (weblakes.com) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Back Cover

To advertise in EM, call Alison Lizzi at 1-412-904-6003.

The Sierra Club then filed a lawsuit in the districtcourt in 2008 to compel the rulemaking under Sec-tion 112(e)(1)(E) of the Clean Air Act. Judge RichardW. Roberts of the district court on March 27 deniedan EPA motion to dismiss the case for lack of juris-diction, allowing the case to move forward.

Comments Will Be AcceptedEPA will publish notice of the proposed consent de-cree in the Federal Register and will accept publiccomments before the settlement can be finalized.

Brick and ceramics kilns emit air toxics, includinghydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and toxicmetals, according to EPA. Exposure to the air toxicshas been associated with adverse health effects thatinclude lung irritation and kidney damage, accord-ing to the agency.

On its Web site, the Brick Industry Association saidthe industry has spent more than $100 million toinstall pollution controls to comply with the 2003rule. The compliance deadline was 2006, whichmeans states had been enforcing the standards fora year before the vacatur. The association said thepollution control equipment, which was installed ingood faith, could be obsolete under a new rule.

The proposed consent decree in Sierra Club vs.EPA, filed Nov. 20 in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia, is available at http://op.bna.com/fcr.nsf/r?Open=jcos-92bmc5.—By Jessica Coomes,Bloomberg BNA em

EPA has agreed to propose air toxics standards forbrick and ceramics kilns in 2013 and finalize thestandards in 2014, according to a proposed consentdecree filed November 20 in federal court (SierraClub vs. EPA, D.D.C., No. 08-424, proposed con-sent decree filed 11/20/12).

The agency agreed to the deadlines to settle a law-suit that the Sierra Club filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia, seeking to compel EPAto issue the rule. Under the proposed consent de-cree, EPA would sign the proposed rule by August30, 2013, and the final rule by July 31, 2014.

The U.S. Clean Air Act required EPA to set nationalemissions standards for hazardous air pollutants formanufacturers of bricks, structural clay products,and clay ceramics by 2000.

Rule Vacated in 2007EPA issued a final rule with the standards in 2003,but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the ruleto the agency, saying its methodology in settingfloors for the standards violated the Clean Air Act(Sierra Club vs. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 64 ERC 1097(D.C. Cir. 2007)). The D.C. Circuit said the standardswere too lenient and, in some cases, nonexistent.


em • in memoriam

In Memory of Emeritus Member William Ellison 1927 - 2012

Ellison authored a chapter on flue gas desulfuriza-tion for McGraw-Hill’s Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering (1989, and 1998 SecondEdition), contributed frequent articles to McGraw-Hill’s POWER magazine, and was a senior consult-ant for the staff of environmental technical newspublisher, The McIlvaine Company. His assignmentsled he and his wife to destinations all over the world,including India, Taiwan, Japan, Czechoslovakia,Mexico, Brazil, Austria, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, and Poland.

Ellison was a veteran of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stationed at Fort Belvoir, VA (1950–1952).He was preceded in death by his wife, Gerd A. Ellison in 2008. He is survived by his son, WilliamH. Ellison of Pasadena; daughter, Karen EllisonSeyler, son-in-law, Andrew Seyler, and grandson,Sebastian Seyler of Mt. Airy, MD; sister, MayGramer of California; and nieces and nephews. em

William Ellison passed away on October 26, 2012.Born in Flushing, NY, on December 27, 1927, hewas the son of Helga and Ivan Ellison, immigrantsfrom Norway and Sweden. Ellison traveled theglobe as an international air pollution control engi-neer and lived in several states before settling inMonrovia, MD, in 1976. Ellison was passionateabout his family, environmental engineering, andfor many years was an active member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Frederick, MD.

After earning a degree in mechanical engineeringand a master’s of science in heat power at StevensInstitute of Technology, followed by a master’s ofengineering (majoring in environmental pollutioncontrol) at City University of New York, he workedfor NUS Corporation in Rockville, MD (1976–1981).Many of his career accomplishments, however,were achieved after he began his own business, Ellison Consultants, based in Monrovia, MD.

Coal Combustion ResiduesThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revisiting its May 2000 determination for coal combustion residues(CCR)—which concluded that hazardous waste regulations were unwarranted—in the wake of the collapse in 2008 of aCCR disposal unit at a Tennessee power plant. The February issue will invite stakeholders on all sides of the topic to provide their view on EPA’s proposed regulation and Congressional efforts to establish a federal regime for CCR.

Also look for…Asian ConnectionsIT InsightYP Perspective…And new this month: The Learning Center. Think of it as “Environmental Management 101,” your introductionto—or refresher course of—today’s major environmental topics.

In the Next Issue…

44 em january 2013 awma.orgawma.org

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

To add your events tothis calendar, send to:Calendar Listings, Air &Waste Management Association, One GatewayCenter, 3rd Floor, 420Fort Duquesne Blvd.,Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1435. Calendar listingsare published on a space-available basis andshould be received byA&WMA’s editorial officesat least three months inadvance of publication.

em • calendar of events

Listed here are the papers appearing in theJanuary 2013 issue of EM's sister publication, theJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association. For more information, go to www.tandfonline.com/UAWM.

JANUARY 2013 • VOLUME 63

JOURNAL

Lead recovery from cathode ray tube funnel glass with mechanical activation

Impacts of temporary traffic control measureson vehicular emissions during the AsianGames in Guangzhou, China

Characterization of aerosol emissions fromwastewater aeration basins

Characteristics of particulate constituentsand gas precursors during the episode andnon-episode periods

A multisensor evaluation of the AsymmetricConvective Model, Version 2 in SoutheastTexas

Past and future ozone trends in California’sSouth Coast Air Basin: Reconciliation ofambient measurements with past and projected emission inventories

Harvesting equipment to reduce particulatematter emissions from almond harvest

The influence of defoamer on removal ofPAHs in soil washing

Energy conservation in the Earth's crust andclimate change

Evaluation of an annular denuder systemfor carbonaceous aerosol sampling ofdiesel engine emissions

2013JANUARY 23 Webinar–A&WMA and AIChE Present:

Mercury and Other Toxics: ComplanceStrategies for Coal Combustion, 1:30-3:00 p.m. Eastern

31 Webinar–A&WMA and Sustainable Remediation Forum Present: SustainableRemediation: Greenwashing or Common Sense?, 1:30-3:30 p.m. Eastern

FEBRUARY4 Webinar–A&WMA Presents: Modeling,

1:30-3:30 p.m. Eastern

19 A&WMA’s Midwest Section Annual Conference, Overland Park, KS

MARCH19–21 Guideline On Air Quality Models:

The Path Forward, Raleigh, NC

MAY19–23 World Environmental & Water Resources

Congress 2013, Cincinnati, OH;http://content.asce.org/conferences/ewri2013

JUNE25–28 A&WMA’s 106th Annual

Conference & Exhibition, Chicago, IL

OCTOBER21–23 International Conference on Thermal

Treatment Technologies/HazardousWaste Combustors, San Antonio, TX

21–23 Air Quality IX, Arlington, VA; www.undeerc.org/AQ9

NOVEMBER19–21 Air Quality Measurement Methods and

Technology, Sacramento, CA

Printed on Recycled Paper

Copyright 2013 Air & Waste Management Association

[email protected] | www.webLakes.com | Tel +1.519.746.5995

FETS WEBEMISSIONS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A Real-Time and Forecast Environmental Compliance Solution!

Generate real-time and forecasted concentration

up to 48 hours into the future. This benefits

operators, engineers, and site supervisors.

FORECASTING & REAL-TIME

Continuously visualize emission plumes and

resulting offsite impacts.

VISUALIZE IMPACTS Automate the process of building facility wide

emissions inventories and performing air

dispersion modeling to demonstrate

regulatory compliance.

AUTOMATE INVENTORIES

Includes odor and other nuisances, reducing

neighbor complaints.

NUISANCE TRACKING

TM

SOFTWARE | MET SERVICES | DATA | TRAINING

oA Real-Time and FFo

onmental Cvirecast Enor

Compliance Solution!

S TEFOSSIIME

BEWS NEMEGANAMS NO

TM

METSYSTN

TM

earte eneraG

ursho48 toup

eng,rstoperao


ALIZE IMPVISU

ncentracotedsecaroffondame ti-lea

benefitssThi.efuturthe ntoiurs

rsosviuperste isnda,neersieng


CTSAALIZE IMP

n otincentra

benefits

.rs


te maAuto

iemi

OTAU

esudIncl

r hbognei

NUISANCE TRA

cifangidlbuif oscesoprthe te

rmiperfndrientoi

IROTNEVNIETAM

r,ncesasuinther ondar odo

.ntsiamplcor

CKINGNUISANCE TRA

e diwty ilci

i

SE

nguciedr

y lusuonntiCo

ffsongtiulesr

aumespln oissemize iluasviy

.ctsmpaite iffs

nda

nsoissemi

oiperssid

rtoaulegr

ngrmioperffondaesrientovnins

te transemodtongieldmon o

.nceaimplcoy r

r iang

mco.eskkeaebLw@onffoi

MET| AREWWATFOS

| mco.eskkeaebLw.ww.ww |

TAATDDA| ESICVERRVSMET

5995746.519.+1.elTTe

GINRAINT| ATTA

competitive strategy: timing is everything managing ...pubs.awma.org/gsearch/em/2013/1/do not...

Documents