I have seen our St. Louis Section getting stronger each year. We have taken great strides in improving our services to our members. I hope that you would agree that we as an organization cannot be as strong individually as we can together with International. Without our International A&WMA organization we may even be taking a step backwards. In support of International, if you are currently not a member, I ask you to think about becoming a member. There are tremendous resources and services that International can provide. If you would like to become a member, please contact any of the Board of Directors. You may also contact the A&WMA through the internet. The address is www.awma.org. With your support we can make a difference with this organization. Thanks for your help and I hope to see you at the upcoming meetings.
Chair
Bernadette Hoffmeister |
 |
December Meeting
Risk Management Planning Process -- A Panel Discussion |
Under the Risk Management Program (RMP) in section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, facilities that handle above a threshold quantity of certain toxic, flammable or volatile substances, such as chlorine, ammonia, or propane, must act to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental releases. To comply with the regulation, facilities must conduct a hazard assessment, develop a prevention program, implement an emergency response program, and submit a summary of their program to EPA by June 21, 1999.
Our December meeting will be a panel discussion focusing on the risk management plan process and its implementation. The meeting will not focus on the required content of RMP submittals, as many of our members are already familiar with this aspect of the subject. Some of the issues that will be discussed at the meeting include:
- Where and how RMP plans will be stored
- How RMP plans will be communicated to local emergency response agencies
- Who will be the primary local enforcement agency?
- Internet access to RMP plans
- The media's perspective on the content of RMP plans
- How to communicate with the public
We have asked each member of our panel to speak for 10-15 minutes. Then we will open up the meeting to discussion and questions. Our speakers' panel will consist of William Spratlin of EPA Region VII, Patrick Justis of MDNR, and Theresa Yohn of KMOV-TV, who has been tracking the status of the Risk Management Program.
WILLIAM A. SPRATLIN
DIRECTOR, AIR, RCRA, AND TOXICS DIVISION
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-REGION VII
Art Spratlin has served with the Region VII Environmental Protection Agency since 1970, and was appointed Director of the Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division in February 1985.
Mr. Spratlin has more than two decades of environmental experience. His career began with the Arkansas Pollution Control commission in 1968 as an Environmental Engineer Supervisor. He moved to EPA as a Sanitary Engineer from 1970 to 1974 and Chief of Air Section in the Surveillance and Analysis Division from 1974 to 1977. He then served as Chief of Air Branch in the Air and Water Division from 1977 to 1982, and Deputy Director of the Air and Waste Management Division from 1982 to 1985. This experience has helped him to develop extensive knowledge of how EPA can maximize its outreach program to the public and the business communities.
Awards Mr. Spratlin has received include the EPA Bronze Medal in 1980, and the EPA Silver Medal in 1984. In 1989 he received EPA's highest honor award, the EPA Gold Medal, given for distinguished service of major significance to environmental improvement and to public service. In 1991, Mr. Spratlin received the Pride in Public Service Award for Professional Excellence. Spratlin, a native of Arkansas, received a B.S. degree and a M.S. degree in Civil Engineering in 1968 and 1973, respectively, both from the University of Arkansas.
PATRICK JUSTIS
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM
ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OFFICE
Pat Justis is an Environmental Specialist on the MDNR workgroup that is developing and will implement Missouri policy for Clean Air Act 112(r) Risk Management Programs. He recently began working on 112(r) after serving 3-1/2 years on the Times Beach-Eastern Missouri Dioxin Remediation. Mr. Justis's has experience in environmental consulting, manufacturing, laboratory services, remediation oversight, and emergency response. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and his Master of Science in Environmental Science and Policy (MSES) from Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs.
THERESA YOHN
SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER
KMOV-TV (CHANNEL 4, ST. LOUIS)
Theresa Yohn began her career as a newspaper reporter in 1983. Over the past 15 years, she has worked in newspaper, radio, and television. Her television career began in 1989 in Wichita, Kansas at the CBS affiliate, KWCH, where she worked as an Assignment Editor. She then went on to work in Memphis at WREG, then Jacksonville, Florida with the NBC affiliate WTLV. In television, her main job has been as a Producer for many years. Ms. Yohn moved into management about 4 years ago and now manages Special Projects at KMOV, where she has been since April of 1997. She is responsible for organizing, planning, and executing coverage of events such as the visit of Pope John Paul II to St. Louis, special stories KMOV does during ratings sweeps, and anything that is not breaking news. Over the course of her career she has won dozens of state and national awards including 4 Regional Emmy's. She has also been nominated for a National Emmy.
Please join us on December 8th at 11:30 at Joe Hanon's Restaurant, I-270 at Dorsett Road, for what promises to be a lively and informative discussion. For specific directions to Joe Hanon's, please call the restaurant at (314) 291-4030.
| Membership Survey Results |
compiled by Cynthia Pavelka
Thanks to all members that completed our membership survey in the September newsletter. A total of 32 members completed the survey (14 in industry, 14 in consulting/contracting and the remaining in miscellaneous environmental businesses). The environmental media that members have the most interest in are air, followed by hazardous/solid waste, toxic and hazardous materials; and the least interest is in water, wastewater, and stormwater.
In the survey, members were asked to identify the top five (5) topics of interest that should be included in the newsletter. The majority of members prefer articles discussing local and federal regulatory programs, technical articles, professional development, and regulatory agencies' organization. The percentage preference for each newsletter section tallied from the survey is shown in Figure 1. Other items surveyed with respect to the newsletter are that members prefer more frequent newsletters and with less content. Due to the higher distribution costs associated with more frequent mailings, the Newsletter Committee will weigh distribution costs versus number of newsletters.
Members were also surveyed on their preferences regarding monthly meeting format. The survey showed that the top five (5) meeting topic preferences are environmental management and compliance; regulatory news and permitting; hazardous waste management; pollution prevention; and risk assessments and management. Other areas of interest to industry professionals included ambient air quality programs and ambient air modeling. Other areas of interest to consultants and contractors included soil and groundwater remediation and treatment technologies. The percentage preference for each meeting topic tallied from the survey is shown in Figure 2.
With respect to the logistics of our monthly meetings, most members prefer lunch meetings and want either more network time or more technical presentation time. For meeting announcements, the survey identified that notifications should be made using either the newsletter, post cards, or e-mail. There is a strong preference for rotating the meetings to different sections of town including the Metro East area. The Board would like to thank all the members that participated in the survey. Please drop a note to any board member with any suggestions or ideas that the organization can incorporate to better serve you. A drawing was held for all survey respondents. The winner is Tom Herlacher of IQSS, Inc., who has won an A&WMA coffee mug.
Supreme Court Simultaneously Limits and Expands Superfund Liability
By Maxine I. Lipeles
Director, Environmental Engineering Program
Washington University
Since its enactment in 1980, the Superfund program has garnered much attention because of the multimillion dollar costs associated with investigating and cleaning up contaminated sites. Both government agencies and private parties who have incurred cleanup costs have sought recoupment from a wide range of "potentially responsible parties," preferably those with deep pockets. The search for deep pockets recently resulted in a significant and somewhat-confusing decision by the United States Supreme Court.
By way of background, the Superfund law (known formally as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA) applies to any site involving an actual or threatened release of "hazardous substances" (hazardous wastes and pollutants under the other principal environmental laws, excluding petroleum). Virtually anyone - such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a state agency, an "innocent" owner of property contaminated by others, one or some of several (or several hundred) responsible parties - who spends money investigating or cleaning up a Superfund site (regardless of whether the site is sufficiently contaminated to merit inclusion on the National Priorities List) may seek reimbursement under the Superfund law from four categories of potentially responsible parties. The categories are: current owners and operators of the site; past owners and operators, provided hazardous substances were disposed of during their ownership or operation; parties who arranged for the off-site treatment or disposal of hazardous substances; and transporters who selected the site for treatment or disposal of the substances they transported.
Because Congress defined an "operator" as "any person ... operating such facility," and because - unlike the companion term "owner" - the word has no commonly understood meaning in this context, parties seeking deep pockets to underwrite Superfund cleanups have seized upon the term as a vehicle for expanding the scope of potentially liable entities. As a result, lenders, parent companies, successor companies, and individual corporate officers and shareholders have all been held liable, in varying circumstances, for Superfund cleanup costs. One justification for expansive, expensive Superfund liability is that the threat of such will encourage companies and individuals to conduct their potentially-contaminating activities in a careful manner. First in the case of lenders and now in the case of parent companies, however, court rulings have created conflicting incentives for such entities seeking to limit or avoid Superfund liability. A brief review of the lender liability issue will aid the reader in assessing the Supreme Court's recent case, which addressed parent company liability.
Following a handful of lower court decisions that held or threatened to hold lenders liable for participating in the management of their borrowers' facilities, a federal appeals court ruled that a lender's authority to affect decisions, even if not actually exercised, could render the lender liable to pay for the cleanup of the facility. "[A] secured creditor will be liable if its involvement with the management of the facility is sufficiently broad to support the inference that it could affect hazardous waste disposal decisions if it so chose." United States v. Fleet Factors Corp., 901 F.2d 1550, 1558 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991) (emphasis added). Lenders seeking to ensure that their borrowers operate in compliance with environmental laws, and avoid causing site contamination, then faced a difficult dilemma. If they obtained, typically in loan agreements, the right to intervene in the borrower's business when necessary to advise a company in distress, which might help the borrower to avoid site contamination, then they risked incurring Superfund liability if contamination nonetheless occurred. After an unsuccessful attempt by the EPA to scale back the scope of lenders' potential liability, Congress in 1996 enacted a narrowly-focused ("rifle shot") amendment to Superfund that sets forth in detail the circumstances that will or will not trigger lender liability. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(20)(E)-(G). In general, the new provisions insulate lenders from Superfund liability when acting in a manner typical of lenders when borrowers default on loans or are otherwise in distress, reserving the consequence of Superfund liability for situations where the lender steps outside of the "mere lender" role and participates in the operational - as opposed to financial - management of the borrower's facility.
As the standards for lender liability under Superfund were being resolved, confusion heightened regarding the potential liability of parent companies for contamination at their subsidiaries' facilities. Because different federal appeals courts had articulated divergent tests for parent company liability under Superfund, the Supreme Court agreed to hear one such case in order to create a nationally-uniform approach to the issue. The case, United States v. Bestfoods, 118 S.Ct. 1876 (1998), involved a site near Muskegon, Michigan at which four different companies (two of which were subsidiaries of parent companies) conducted chemical manufacturing sequentially between 1957 and 1986. The first company, Ott Chemical Co. (Ott I), sold its assets in 1965 to a new company, also called Ott Chemical Co. (Ott II), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary created by parent company CPC International for the sole purpose of buying and operating the Ott I facility. CPC placed several of Ott II's officers and directors in corporate positions in CPC as well. In 1972, CPC sold Ott II to Story Chemical Co., which went bankrupt in 1977. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) discovered site contamination, and negotiated with the new buyer to conduct certain cleanup activities, with partial funding and an indemnity from the state. Aerojet-General Corp. negotiated the acquisition and cleanup, and created two new companies to own and operate the facility. (The operator was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the site owner, which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aerojet-General.) The EPA began requiring further cleanup in 1981, chemical manufacturing ceased in 1985, and in 1989 the EPA sought cost recovery from CPC, Aerojet and its two subsidiaries, and the individual who was the founder, president, and principal shareholder of Ott I. Both Ott I and Ott II were defunct. The trial court found both parent companies, CPC and Aerojet, liable as operators under Superfund. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court applied an incorrect test to determine parent company liable, and held that neither parent was liable in this case. Of the various approaches to parent company liability that had been articulated by the federal appeals courts, the Sixth Circuit's was the most narrow, allowing parent company liability only under the traditional test for "piercing the corporate veil" (i.e., disregarding the separate corporate identities, and attendant limited liabilities, of parent and subsidiary).
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Supreme Court agreed with the Sixth Circuit's analysis that the Superfund law did not create a new test governing parent company liability for problems or violations related to their subsidiaries' activities. (People who choose to focus on this aspect of the decision will read it as the termination of nearly 20 years of ever-expanding Superfund liability.) But the Supreme Court went further; whereas the appeals court found only one basis for parent company liability in pre-existing law, the Supreme Court found two.
First, a parent company could face "indirect" liability - arising from its ownership and control of the subsidiary - if the traditional test for piercing the corporate veil was met.
| | It is a general principle of corporate law deeply "ingrained in our economic and legal systems" that a parent corporation ... is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries....
But there is an equally fundamental principle of corporate law ... that the corporate veil may be pierced and the shareholder [e.g., parent company] held liable for the [subsidiary] corporation's conduct when ... the corporate form would otherwise be misused to accomplish certain wrongful purposes, most notably fraud, on the shareholder's behalf. | |
Because none of the parties was asserting that the actions of CPC or Aerojet justified piercing their corporate veils, the Supreme Court did not elaborate on the circumstances that might give rise to veil piercing in the Superfund context.
Second, the Supreme Court held that, even where veil piercing was not appropriate, a parent company could nonetheless incur "direct" liability for its own actions in operating its subsidiary's facilities. In light of the "useless" statutory definition of the term operator, and the varied interpretations adopted by the lower courts, the Supreme Court sought to clarify this key term.
| | ... [U]nder CERCLA, an operator is simply someone who directs the workings of, manages, or conducts the affairs of a facility....[A]n operator must manage, direct, or conduct operations specifically related to pollution, that is, operations having to do with the leakage or disposal of hazardous waste, or decisions about compliance with environmental regulations.
... [T]he statute obviously meant something more than mere mechanical activation of pumps and valves, and must be read to contemplate "operation" as including the exercise of direction over the facility's activities. | |
Viewed against the pre-existing case law on the issue of parent company liability, the Supreme Court's decision is significant in three respects. First, while holding that Superfund did not change well-settled principles regarding parent company liability, the Court specifies these two, independent bases on which a parent company might face Superfund liability for contamination at its subsidiary's facility. Second, the Bestfoods decision clarifies that a parent company's direct liability, as operator, must be tied specifically to its operation of the facility itself, and cannot be based on its more general control or operation of the subsidiary. (However, proof of extensive control over the subsidiary could result in indirect, veil piercing, liability.) Third, the Court indicated that although a party will not be deemed an operator under Superfund without having exercised actual control (as opposed to mere authority to control, regardless of whether exercised), such control is not limited to physical participation in contamination-generating activities, but could extend to "the exercise of direction over the facility's activities."
Although this case resolves the conflicts among the lower courts regarding the potential Superfund liability of parent companies (and, by extension, individual corporate officers or shareholders), it creates at best uncertainty, and at worst contradictory incentives, for parent companies (and individual corporate officers or shareholders) who wish to ensure that their companies avoid contaminating their sites, while also taking advantage of limited corporate liability and protecting themselves from direct liability in the event such contamination nonetheless occurs. For example, the Supreme Court held that CPC might face direct Superfund operator liability because its director of governmental and environmental affairs "played a conspicuous part in dealing with the toxic risks emanating from the operation of the [subsidiary's] plant" - he was heavily involved in environmental issues at the Ott II facility, and he issued directives regarding Ott II's response to regulatory inquiries. The Supreme Court directed the lower courts to reconsider CPC's potential liability in this case, in light of the "critical question" - "whether, in degree and detail, actions directed to the facility by an agent of the parent alone are eccentric under accepted norms of parental oversight of a subsidiary's facility." Because the Court confirmed a parent company's ability - without incurring direct liability - to place some of its officers and directors in similar positions at the subsidiary, the preceding quotation suggests that a parent company is better off using such dual officers, who are then presumed by law (unless proof is made to the contrary) to be "wearing their 'subsidiary hats' and not their 'parent hats' when acting for the subsidiary." Yet an abundance of such efforts by the parent, seeking to avoid direct Superfund liability, could actually create the sort of extensive control sufficient to justify veil piercing, resulting in indirect Superfund liability.
Without more guidance regarding the distinction between normal and "eccentric" parental oversight, the Supreme Court's ruling suggests to parent company managers that, in order to avoid parent company liability, they should not participate in environmental compliance decisions regarding the subsidiary. In other words, rather than centralizing expertise in corporate management, parent companies seeking to protect themselves from Superfund liability should require their subsidiaries to hire their own managers and make their own decisions regarding environmental compliance. Yet, it is arguable that the parent company's interest in ensuring that its subsidiary operates in compliance with environmental laws, and does not contaminate its facility, is better served by providing some centralized oversight and participation. As in the case of lender liability, the Supreme Court's decision in Bestfoods seems to create conflicting incentives.
That the teachings of Bestfoods are somewhat contradictory is underscored by the divergent applications of the Supreme Court's ruling by federal appeals courts in the five months since that case was decided. Citing Bestfoods, two appeals courts reversed trial court rulings that had imposed operator liability (although one of these decisions also refused to rule that the defendant was not an operator, instead remanding the case for reevaluation under the Bestfoods approach). On the other hand, two appeals courts (coincidentally, those with jurisdiction over Missouri and Illinois) reversed decisions that had exonerated parent companies of operator liability (one of the decisions was outside of the environmental context).
In Bestfoods, the Supreme Court clarified several significant aspects of Superfund law, and placed some bounds on the potentially-expansive scope of operator liability. Companies and individuals with the dual objectives of acting in an environmentally-responsible manner, yet minimizing the possibility of incurring Superfund liability, will likely be scrutinizing the post-Bestfoods rulings in their jurisdiction and pressing for further clarification of the too-fine line between permissible and impermissible parent company involvement in subsidiaries' environmental programs.
| AGENCY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART |
Compiled by Mike Zlatic
The Illinois General Assembly was the first state legislature in the nation to adopt a comprehensive Environmental Protection Act. It was signed into law by Governor Richard Ogilvie and became effective on July 1, 1970. As a part of that act, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency was created. The mission of the Illinois EPA is to safeguard environmental quality, consistent with the social and economic needs of the State, so as to protect health, welfare, property and the quality of life. Today, the Illinois EPA is composed of roughly 1,200 employees, working in the headquarters in Springfield and in nine field offices and three laboratories throughout the State. The following abbreviated organizational chart provides general contact information for the various bureaus. More information is available at IEPA's website: www.epa.state.il.us
 | |  |
| | Monitor Volunteer Openings Available Now!!
Join us as a Conference Volunteer at the
1999 Annual Meeting & Exhibition in
St. Louis, MO!
Get Involved & Get Special Benefits! | |
|
Volunteering provides an exceptional opportunity to attend technical presentations, as well as network with
some of the best environmental professionals in the world.
Monitoring at the conference will involve working one or more 4 - 5 hour shifts by monitoring
the various technical sessions. Specifically, this means ensuring that all A/V equipment is
operational, and that presenters have whatever necessary for their sessions, and often, operating
the A/V equipment for the presenter. Morning sessions run from 8 -11:30 and afternoon sessions
1:30 - 5:00. Morning volunteers will need to be at the monitor's room by 7:15; afternoon volunteers by 12:45 p.m.
Special Benefits: If you volunteer for one half-day, your same day registration will be free.
Full day volunteers will receive any other day's registration free. Student volunteers will earn a
full student registration by serving as a volunteer for just two full days.
Assignments will be made on a first come first serve basis. Please choose from the sessions listed below.
Where possible, accommodations will be made for the presentation preferred, but cannot be assured.
|
|
| Name | | Agency/Firm/School |
| |
|
| Address | | City, State/Province, Zip/Postal Code |
| |
|
| Phone (day) (home) | | E-mail |
| |
|
| Fax | | Are you a student? yes no |
|
| |
| |
I can volunteer for the following shifts:
| Time | MON | TUES | WED | THURS | FRI |
| A.M. | | | | | |
| P.M. | | | | | |
| | Send this form to:
Christa Andrew
Advance Environmental Associates
2088 Craigshire Drive
St. Louis, MO 63146
Tel: 314-434-5700 Fax: 314-434-7071
E-Mail: AdvEnvAsoc@aol.com |
|
|
by Cynthia Pavelka, Vice-Chair
Summary of Meeting Minutes
The last several months have been very busy for both Greater St. Louis Board members and members helping with local Section activities and the Annual Conference. The Board of Directors met twice over the last several months to implement and further develop the Section's plans for the year. One item the Board is especially proud of being rolled out in the last several months is our own Section's website. Mark your bookmark now with our website location at http://www.awmastl.org. We would like to recognize and thank Jennifer Markwardt for her efforts in setting up the website and managing it. The website contains meeting announcements, newsletters, and how to contact the Board of Directors. The Section's website can also be accessed through the Association's website (awma.org). Between the two website locations, you will be able to keep current with all A&WMA activities.
The treasurer's report identified that the Section is in good standing and has a balance of approximately $24,000. The Board has drafted a Fiscal 98/99 budget. The Section's financial goals are to break even this year on all local activities and to sponsor or partially sponsor an Annual Conference event. Much discussion was held by the Board regarding the financial status and the challenges the A&WMA Association is experiencing. The Board is in agreement that the best contribution that we can offer the Association is to ensure that the Annual Conference is a success!
The Section was proud to host the Section & Chapters Council (S&CC) Meeting on September 26, 1998. Jim Myers and Cynthia Pavelka represented the Section at the meeting. Approximately 20 Section and Chapter leaders spent a full day discussing: 1) rollout of the new membership database developed by Pittsburgh International, 2) membership satisfaction survey, and 3) financial report. In addition, an intensive brainstorming session was held to identify initiatives that would transform the Association to better serve the environmental profession and keep a sustainable Association. The day ended with a tour of Cervantes Convention Center and dinner at Bommaritos On-the-Hill. After a long exhausting day, Jim and I traipsed them to a St. Louis landmark - Ted Drewes! Naturally they were impressed and are looking forward to another visit in June. From the outcome of the meeting and further discussions, the Association is taking steps to implement these initiatives. This writing is only a summary of the Board meeting minutes. Please contact Dennis Dubitsky, secretary, for a copy of meeting minutes.
| MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE REPORT |
by Cynthia Pavelka, Committee Chair
The membership committee is currently conducting a membership drive to have more local-only Section members join the International Association. You may be asking, "What is the difference? I thought I was an International member?" I'll admit when I first joined the Association it was confusing identifying the various categories of memberships. The A&WMA starts at the International level that connects a global network of over 14,000 environmental professionals. The Association is divided in geographical Sections that may include local Chapters organized under each Section. Representing the St. Louis geographical area is the Greater St. Louis Section with no Chapters. When you join, there are several different membership categories offered. Let's look at the numerous benefits of becoming both an International and local Section member. The A&WMA is a not-for-profit technical, scientific and educational organization that has been a leader in the global environmental management community since 1907.
Reasons to Belong to Air & Waste Management Association
....The Premier Environmental Association:
- Join a Powerful, Growing Network of Professionals
As a member of the A&WMA, you automatically are networked to a geographically local Section and/or Chapter of the Association. The Greater St. Louis Section currently has over 370 members. You also may join technical, education and other committees on an Association-wide basis. The strength of the Association is the joining together of leaders in industry, government, and other environmental areas on a neutral platform.
- Access Professional Employment and Career Services
Whether you are an employer or advancing your career, you may use A&WMA's listing of open job opportunities via A&WMA's Internet website (awma.org). These up-to-date listings include professional employment opportunities throughout the world to match companies with professionals. A&WMA's annual meetings provide access to face-to-face employer to prospective employee meetings.
- Maintain Cutting-edge Knowledge through Educational Opportunities
Whether your interest is A&WMA's Annual Meeting, Specialty Conferences, Workshops or Section meetings, you will receive member notices and 20 - 30% discounts to opportunities to keep you ahead in your field and enhance your professional standing. For students in a degree program, scholarship opportunities are available.
- Subscription to either Environmental Manager (EM) or A&WMA Journal
Your membership automatically provides a subscription to the leading environmental publications. Stay up-to-date monthly with the latest activities shaping science and business - and your role in it. Both of these A&WMA publications are available to members anytime via Internet access.
- Subscription to A&WMA News and the Greater St. Louis Section Newsletter
In addition to the technical publications, you will receive both the international and the local Section newsletters to keep you up-to-date on organization events. The local Section newsletter covers local regulations, local agency organization, event information, technical articles, and Section news.
- Save on Association Publications
As a member, industry-wide sources of publications are available to you at a reduced cost.
- Gain Leadership Skills while Giving Back to Your Profession
The Association provides an avenue to share your expertise and experience with others throughout the profession. In addition, you have the opportunity to enhance your leadership skills by participating in the volunteer management of the Association on a local, regional or international level.
What is the Cost of Joining?
Membership in A&WMA is available in four main categories: Individual, Affiliate (young professional under age 27), Student (full-time) and Organizational. Full Individual Membership annual dues are $125. If you are already a local Section member, $15 will be credited to your account. There are no initiation fees. Affiliate and Student membership dues are less - please inquire regarding fees. Join now and you will be making a down payment to the 92nd Annual Conference because a substantial discount ($100 - $200) is given to members only.
How do I Join?
- Internet on-line registration - contact A&WMA's website: www.awma.org
- Call 1-800-270-3444 and request membership package.
- Pick up membership package at the next local meeting.
- Contact any board member or Cynthia Pavelka at e-mail: cpavelka@Ralston.com or phone: 314-982-4716.
Want to help the Section reach our goals? We need committee members to assist with 1) Organizing our members to help assist with the '99 Conference, 2) Increasing general meeting participation, and 3) Developing a student chapter in Rolla by working with the Education Committee. Please e-mail or call Cynthia Pavelka if you are interested in any of these projects.
New Web Site
Check out our new web site for future meeting programs and more:
www.awmastl.org
Address Change
Need to change your mailing address?
Please send all address, telephone and e-mail changes to:
Dennis Dubitsky, Secretary.
Fax: 298-6484
E-mail: ddubitsky@hussmann.com
Feedback
The Newsletter Committee wants your input. We want to know what you think of our new look and, as always, encourage you to share ideas for future issues. E-mail or call your Newsletter Committee:
Tom Maddox, Chair
Jim Myers, Editor
Cynthia Pavelka, Publisher
Joe Rubino
Bernadette Hoffmeister.
The work never goes away....
Our '99 meeting draws ever closer and the amount of work that needs to be done never seems to get any the less. So, for all of you who have volunteered to help; your chance is at hand. Those who've already given time have gotten us a long way down the road to success. They know who they are and I won't mention names now - but a great collective thanks is due to them and their work.
Right now, we have organized most of the meeting and are now going to concentrate on several other areas. We already have a series of technical tours to exciting destinations such as Monsanto, Boeing, AmerenUE..... There's also a program of food and entertainment for the attendees, arrangements for students who come to discuss their work and a program for the guests of attendees. And soon, we'll be looking at the issue of sponsorship for these events, and several others including teachers programs, providing room monitors for the technical presentations, manning the host booth and more...
There's also the planning for the International Urban Environment Symposium, which will bring the environmental people and issues from the world's mega-cities to our town for a session of thought, ideas and solutions. This is something else for us all to work towards and help.
More immediate, however, is our sponsorship money drive. This money supports the above activities and helps make the meeting a successful event for all - members, students and teachers alike. Larry Waite (CH2M-Hill) and Tim Venverloh (Sigma Chemical) have done a great job of getting the sponsorship materials ready for this effort. Now, it is time to get these materials out and develop the sponsorship. If you would like to help --
Your Section Needs You!!
Please contact myself (694-6739 or richard.j.edwards@monsanto.com) or Tim Venverloh (286-7990 or tvenverloh@sial.com). We will put you in touch with the right person in the leading section who needs the help. We'd love to hear from you.
Richard Edwards/Tim Venverloh
The 1999 Annual Meeting Technical Program (AMTP) got off to a slow start, but promises to be a very strong program. By the official deadline for abstracts, only 25 percent of last year's submissions had been received. Thanks to a good second effort, including several proposals from local members, we are very near our expectations. Although some abstracts continued to roll in even as the sessions were being developed, there were over 800 abstracts submitted. The response to our first year of using the internet to submit abstracts was very successful. Forty-seven percent of the abstracts were submitted through the A&WMA web server, and forty-three percent came in by e-mail. Thus, less work was required by A&WMA to organize and send abstracts out for review. Most of the review process has been handled by using the internet, as well, which has greatly improved the review process.
By the time you receive this newsletter the AMTP will be finalized and authors should be receiving notification of the acceptance of their paper or poster. If you submitted a proposal and do not receive notification by the middle of December, call A&WMA or Tom Blackwood at 314-674-8093 or send him an e-mail (trblac@solutia.com).
Topics that were very popular reflected many of the local issues and themes suggested by local members of A&WMA. This should be a big help in drawing attendance from local businesses and government. Popular topics were: Ambient Air Quality including Particulate Matter (PM) and Regional Haze ambient ozone measurements, Advances in Source- and Receptor-based Air Quality Modeling, Pollutant Emission Controls, Case Studies of Environmental Management Information Systems, Pollution Prevention in Federal Facilities, Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions and Climate Technology Initiatives, and Innovations in Soil and Groundwater Treatment Technologies.
A reminder for those submitting papers: For inclusion in the AMTP, a complete draft manuscript of the proposed paper will be due by February 8, 1999 and a revised final manuscript by March 8, 1999. There will be some sessions devoted to late breaking issues, and if you think you have a proposal that fits this area, please submit it to A&WMA or e-mail your idea to Tom Blackwood and C.V. Mathi (cvmathi@apsc.com).
T.R. Blackwood
Technical Program Vice-Chair
EPA Region VII
Continuous Release Initiative - Update
by Bernadette Hoffmeister
In the last A&WMA Newsletter, we reprinted the Region VII EPA's Continuous Release Enforcement Initiative letter that was sent to many companies throughout Missouri. Since then, there have been numerous discussions between industry, environmental organizations, law firms, and state agencies which challenged the authority that EPA Region VII used in the original initiative letter.
After revisiting this issue and consulting with EPA Headquarters, EPA Region VII has announced that the continuous release initiative is suspended and that all facilities which received the July 15, 1998 letter will receive a second letter from EPA detailing the modifications to the initiative. Region VII is suspending the Initiative as to facilities that have releases subject to and in compliance with any federally enforceable permit limit, including permits that contain general limits on the emission of VOC compounds. These facilities will not be subject to any penalties under the enforcement initiative for the failure to file continuous release reports. There has been some discussion that EPA Headquarters will issue some clarification of the "federally permitted" exemption in the Federal Register in the next several months.
Facilities that received the July letter, but do not have a federally enforceable permit, have until December 31, 1998, to respond; however, if the release reporting problem is for a substance not subject to the initial letter, a facility has until January 19, 1999. Facilities that did not receive the initial letter, but have a release reporting problem, have until January 19, 1999.
Some companies have responded to the original Region VII's letter stating that they will pay the $11,000 settlement fee. According to the various conversations with the Region, if you choose, your company may withdraw from the Enforcement Agreement.
Region VII has established a hotline number for anyone having questions or additional information regarding the Initiative. The hotline number is (913) 551-7970. Someone will return your call within 24 hours.
Since the letters have not yet been generated and sent, please contact the hotline for verification of the Region VII's final resolution to this issue. Information provided by William Spratlin, U.S. EPA, Region VII; Roger Walker, REGFORM; and Bryan Cave, LLP.
