Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

As an indication the New Source Review (NSR) enforcement actions are alive and well, today an Indiana federal court has ordered the shut down of units that triggered NSR and failed to install controls.  In addition, the Court required Cinergy to surrender allowances to compensate for "irreparable harm" caused by the operation of the units in violation of the Clean Air Act

The Federal District Court in Indiana issued its decision in the remedy phase of the New Source Review (NSR) enforcement action against Cinergy Corporation's Beckjord, Ohio plant.  A jury trial was held in May of 2008 to determine whether certain projects triggered NSR.  The jury found that four projects performed at the facility "a reasonable power plant owner or operator would have expected a new increase of 40 tons of SO2 and/or NOx "(NSR major modification trigger levels).  Following the jury's verdict, the Court moved into the remedy stage to determine what relief to grant the plaintiffs for the violations.

The Courts decision is an interesting exercise of looking its crystal ball.  Based on calculations of emissions and modeling, the Court projected environmental harm caused by failure to comply with NSR. 

To determine harm, the Court first determined the type of pollution controls that would have been installed had Cinergy complied with NSR requirements (BACT/LAER).  Those controls established the baseline emissions that should have been emitted since the projects were completed.  All emissions above the baseline were considered  "excess emissions" that resulted in environmental harm and potential health impacts.

It was pretty evident which direction the Court was heading when it included the following statement in its order:

With respect to SO2 emissions, Dr. Fox testified that the annual excess emissions of SO2 is approximately 23,000 tons...Putting this into perspective, this rate is approximately equivalent to the amount of SO2 emitted by 324,000 heavy-duty diesel trucks, which is the total number of trucks registered in Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky.

The analysis of environmental harm and potential health impacts was very similar to the exercise undertaken by the North Carolina Court in the nuisance claims against coal fired power plants (see post, "Nuisance Finding Gives Downwind States New Ammo in Long Cross-Border Pollution War").  Here is what the Court examined to gage harm caused by "excess emissions":

• How did the SO2 and Nox emission impact pm 2.5 and ozone attainment
• What were mercury emission impacts
• Potential health impacts from fine particle pollution
• Damage to the environment from acid rain

After finding irreparable harm from these impacts the Court ordered:

1. Shut down of three units by Sept. 2009
2. Until Sept. 2009, the three units must be run so as not to exceed baseline levels that are based BACT/LAER controls
3. Permanently surrender SO2 allowances in an amount equal to total SO2 emissions from May 22, 2008 until September 30, 2009

For those who though the NSR consent decrees carried with them pretty dramatic remedies, this decision shows you take an equivalent risk by going to trial. 

 (Photo: DanieVDM/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On May 26th, the Ohio Department of Development announced the recipients of the second round of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant (DERG) program.  The announcement once again highlights issues with implementation of this grant program. 

After two grant rounds, school buses, transit and rail received the lion share of the total $19.8 million in available funding under this program.  There are issues with this allocation:

• School buses already have available funding through Ohio EPA Clean Diesel School Bus Fund
• Transit has received $203 million in stimulus money
• Rail projects are very costly- the project funded in the two DERG rounds took up nearly 1/2 of the available funding

In concept, the DERG program selects projects based upon cost effectiveness.  This should mean money is directed toward projects that will result in the biggest reductions at the lowest cost. According to U.S. EPA data, the transit sector in Ohio accounts for only 2% of diesel emissions. Other sectors eligible under DERG, such as construction equipment and heavy duty trucks, account for nearly 50% of the diesel emissions.

Yet after two DERG rounds, only 8 pieces of construction equipment and/or heavy duty trucks will be repowered/replaced/retrofitted. 

While I can quibble with how successful DERG has been at targeting sectors for reductions, it is still is a very good program that has resulted in substantial reductions. As detailed in previous posts, DERG is also good for Ohio's economy by promoting voluntary emission reductions that reduces air pollution costs for businesses.   Unfortunately, the Transportation Bill (H.B. 2) cut DERG's funding by 80% (see discussion at the end of this post).

Let's hope the State Legislature doesn't give up on a very worthwhile program.

From' the ODOD DERG press release here is the list of recipients in the second round:

• City of Dublin, in partnership with City of Westerville - Replacing eight model year
1999/2000 short haul diesel trucks.
• Columbus City Schools - Replacing 15 model year 1990 school buses with new school buses.
• CSX Transportation, Inc. - Repowering four Switcher Locomotives with GENSET diesel
engines.
• Great Lakes Construction - Repowering two model year 1987/1988 track type bulldozers.
• Industrial Railway Switching & Services - Retrofitting three switcher locomotives with the
private vendor's "Lean and Green Locomotive Package" technology to reduce overall vehicle
emissions.
• John R. Jurgensen - Replacing two track type bulldozers and four hydraulic excavators with
new vehicles.
• Kenston Local School District - Replacing one model year 1998 school bus with a new plugin
hybrid school bus.
• Manchester Local School District - Replacing one model year 1991 school bus with a new
plug-in hybrid school bus.
• Osnaburg Local Schools, in partnership with Massillon Local Schools and North Canton
Local Schools – Retrofitting six school buses with DPF/CCFS applications and replacing three
school buses with new model year buses.
• Portage County Solid Waste Management District - Replacing one model year 1999 diesel
truck used for the collection of recyclables.
• Ross Local School District - Replacing five model year 1988/1990/1991 school buses with
new buses.
• Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority - Repowering 50 model year 2001/2002 public
transit buses.
• Stark County Commissioners, in partnership with Stark County Board of Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities - Replacing seven model year 1993/1995 school
buses with new model year buses.
• Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority - Replacing an existing diesel generator set on port
facility gantry crane.
• Wood County Commissioners, in partnership with Wood County Board of Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities - Replacing five model year 1998/2001/2002
diesel powered school buses with new liquid propane- injected (LPI) engines
• Wood County Engineer’s Office – Replacing two model year 1990/1996 diesel powered dump
trucks with new trucks

Update on DERG Funding

In the last State budget, Ohio set aside $20 million over two years from federal transportation dollars known as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program.  Federal legislation made clear that diesel emission reduction projects were not only acceptable they should be a priority.

After the last budget, Ohio had the largest dedicated diesel fund in the entire Midwest.  Ohio received awards for the DERG program.  The Ohio Diesel Coalition sought to renew the DERG program for another two years at the same level of funding.  Ultimately. H.B. 2 included only $5 million in funding for DERG over the next two fiscal years.  This is a $15 million dollar reduction from the past two years. 

Meanwhile, $15 million has been set aside for public transportation, which has already received, according to the Plain Dealer, nearly $203 million in stimulus funding. 

While DERG has had its issues starting up, most new government programs do.  There certainly is enough demand for the program.  Unfortunately, DERG funding has been reduced by 80%.  This reduction comes at a time when only a few small scale construction equipment projects have received funding.  Ohio has not even scratched the surface of possible reductions from this sector, by far the largest source of diesel emissions.  Now is not the time to be reducing funding for this program.

(Photo: terinea/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Representatives Waxman and Markey released their much anticipated re-write of their proposed cap and trade climate legislation earlier this week. Much speculation has been offered in the media that the bill had no chance of passing as it was originally structured, if it had any chance at all. 

Well, there has apparently been a lot of horse trading going on to shore up Democratic support for the bill.  Most notably, President Obama's proposal to have 100% auction of allowances (pollution permits) has been completely tossed out.   The revised legislation allocates that majority of allowances to industry. 

The majority staff provided a summary of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act) to the Committee.  While the summary is helpful to get an overview of this complex bill, I thought one of the most interesting statements appears in the introduction to the summary appearing on the first page:

In the past two and half years, the Committee has held dozens of hearings on energy and climate change policy and has built a detailed factual record on the need for legislation in this area.  The nation's dependence on foreign oil has significantly increased over the last decade.  Consumers have faced increasing and volatile energy prices.  Other countries have overtaken us in the manufacture of wind and solar energy.  Energy company investments are paralyzed because of uncertainty about what policies the Congress will establish.  Meanwhile, global warming has increased unchecked.

Let's rank the staff's reasons for passing climate change legislation:

1. Reduce dependence on foreign oil
2. Volatile energy prices
3. Increase production of renewable energy
4. Regulatory certainty
5. Global warming

Isn't iit a little odd that global warming is not emphasized as the main reason for the legislation.  There is no discussion at all of the increased threat of climate change and the need to act.  Rather, its about foriegn oil and renewable power.  That seems strange to me, after all it is a multi-billion dollar cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gases.

It is clear the choice in messaging is in reaction to the headway Republicans and conservative Democrats have made in raising concerns about the timing and cost of the legislation.  In a very difficult economy its hard to gain support for costly new programs, especially programs on the scale called for in this legislation. 

In reaction to this strong criticism we find a re-worked bill that provides the lion share of allowances to industry as well as other hedges against the potential cost of the program.  I am not criticizing the approach, rather I am commenting on the unrealistic nature of the President's 100% auction proposal.  This is a massive new environmental regulatory program, one that is greater in scope than any previous programs.  It makes sense to transition toward a carbon regulated economy.

Here are some of the more notable provisions in the legislation:

1. Reduction Targets- Reductions from covered sources to 97% of 2005 levels by 2012, 83% by 2020, 58% by 17% by 2050.  Here is one of the changes that is meant to ease into a carbon constrained world.  The reductions have been diminished in the early years to ease the transition.  While it helps out in the early years, at some point we face a major spike in needed reductions.  That may be a difficult issue to overcome.
2. Who is covered by the Cap?- By year the cap kicks in--- Group 2012: Electricity generators, liquid fuel refiners, and fluorinated gas manufacturers. Group 2014: Industrial sources that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Group 2016: Natural gas local distribution companies.
3. Allowance allocation- Coal related: 30% to local electric distribution companies regulated by the states. 5% to merchant coal generators. Natural gas related: 9% of allowances to local distribution companies.  Home heating oil and propane: 1.5% to state programs for users of home heating oil or propane.
4. Auction- approximately 15% of allowances will be auctioned beginning 2011 and proceeds directed to low and moderate income families to address increases in energy prices. This is a far cry from the President's proposal of 100% auction.
5. Offsets- Covered entities are able to offset up to 2 billion tons of emissions by using EPA-approved domestic and international offset credits.  The ability to use the credits is divided according to the legislation's allocation formula.  By 2017, the price to use international offsets is increased.  Covered entities must use five tons of international offset credits for every four tons of emissions being offset.  Offsets are designed to reduce the cost of compliance.  Industries covered by the cap can purchase credits generated by projects outside of the cap.  Offset credits would be cheaper than allowances thereby reducing the cost of compliance.  It also creates a whole new business for companies that specialize in carbon offset credit projects.
6. Offset Integrity Advisory Board-  Board provides recommendations to EPA as to type of offset projects that should be listed by EPA as eligible; appropriate quantification methodologies, etc...  The bill contains multiple safeguards to try and improve the integrity of offsets.  These provisions have been included to address the criticism the European Trading Scheme has received regarding the lack of creditability of offsets used in Europe's Cap and Trade program.
7. National Renewable Portfolio Standard- Includes a requirement that retail electric suppliers provide 6% from renewable energy sources by 2010.  The standard rises to 20% by 2020.  Up to one quarter of the 20% requirement can be met through energy efficiency projects.
8. Clean Air Act Exemptions-  The bill would specifically exempt greenhouse gases from coverage under the Title V program, New Source Review Program, NAAQS, and HAPs. 

Number 8-  is a huge positive factor arguing in favor of the cap and trade approach. As detailed on this blog many times, regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would be a disaster. It would result in over regulation of small sources, inefficient permitting which would slow projects and significant amounts of litigation.

Dspite the recent media coverage, I don't see how EPA backs away from the cliff at this point.  Three are too many things set in motion for EPA to move away from regulation under the Clean Air Act unless legislation is passed. Cap and trade legislation, especially a bill that calls for a smooth transition to a carbon regulated world is just a far better alternative.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General released a report regarding the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos on enforcement of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  The report, titled Comments Related to Effects Jurisdictional Uncertainty On Clean Water Act Implementation, contains some interesting observations and discussion.  Bottomline, the lack of clarity for determining whether wetlands or waterways fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act has led to U.S. EPA dropping hundred of enforcement cases. 

Overall, CWA enforcement activities (for Sections 311 (oil spills), 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), and 404) have decreased since the Rapanos ruling. An estimated total of 489 enforcement cases (Sections 311, 402, and 404 combined) have been affected such that formal enforcement was not pursued as a result of jurisdictional uncertainty, case priority was lowered as a result of jurisdictional uncertainty, or lack of jurisdiction was asserted as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action.

Some interesting observations by the EPA lawyers who are  trying to provide advice to those enforcing the Clean Water Act:  Here are two notable comments about the legal terms that are causing uncertainty:

Traditional navigable waterways evade easy definition; even the Supreme Court has been vague on the precise scope of traditional navigable waterways. Traditional navigable waterways have arisen in multiple legal contexts over the years, not just in CWA discussions. Many stakeholders find the Appendix D definition to be still too broad to adequately serve the jurisdictional issues created by the Rapanos decision. The OGC attorneys noted that there had been considerable discussion about the scope of traditional navigable waterways in Fall 2007. Traditional navigable waterways continue to be an issue in some "isolated (a)(3)" elevations.

"Adjacency" was not addressed by the Supreme Court. Although there are 1-2 sentences on it in the interim June 2007 guidance, it remains an imprecise term. However, OGC staff is working with various program offices to create a follow-up to the June 2007 Rapanos guidance where adjacency, among other things, will be addressed. The real debate involves the interpretation of one aspect of the "adjacency" definition: "neighboring." This "neighboring" term was a cornerstone of the debate in the Carabell case.

The blog Great Lakes Law provides a good summary of the aftermath of the Rapanos Decision as well as discussing the possible legislative fix currently being debated in Congress:

Rapanos / Carabell vs. United States resulted in a divided Court issuing a confusing 4-4-1 divided ruling that cast doubt on whether non-navigable tributaries and their associated wetlands were protected by the Clean Water Act. The Rapanos decision has put at risk safeguards for approximately 60% of the nation’s stream miles (exclusive of Alaska) and their neighboring wetlands.

If nearly 60% of the rivers and wetlands are "unprotected" under federal law, it would seem there would be strong pressure on the States to fill the void.  That pressure is being felt in Ohio where it has proposed a new permit program for impacts to streams.  This proposed rule, if it goes final, would likely be challenged.  This could lead to the State of Ohio's own Rapanos-type decision in the State Supreme Court.  Although that is a long way off.

Outside of new regulations, some states have legal authority that appears broader then federal jurisdiction over waterways.  I wonder whether in any of the 500 cases the U.S. EPA  has dropped they attempted to make a reverse referral to the States for enforcement.   For instance, Ohio Revised Code 6111 has a very broad definition of "Waters of the State" which could form the basis of a State enforcement action:

“Waters of the state” means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and other bodies or accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural or artificial, regardless of the depth of the strata in which underground water is located, that are situated wholly or partly within, or border upon, this state, or are within its jurisdiction, except those private waters that do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters.

Many are pinning their hopes on a Congressional fix that would expand federal jurisdiction beyond navigable waters or those with a "significant nexus" to a navigable water.   Legislation has been proposed- the Clean Water Restoration Act.  It would redefine fedral waterways covered by the Clean Water Act by dropping the term "navigable" as a qualifier to which waters are covered.  It would also add the following language regarding federal

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.—The term ‘waters of the United States’ means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

This language would certainly capture virtually every water way.   However, it is very controversial.  Especially out West.  Perhaps with Democratic control this legislation will begin to move, but it still faces a huge challenge.  As a result, states will be feeling increasing pressure, like Ohio has, to exercise existing authority in an attempt to fill the void left by the Rapanos decision.

(Photo: whiskymac/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported by the AP, "White House Memo Challenges Finding on Warming", an OMB document contains opinions that regulation of the greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act could have dramatic impacts on the economy.  The release of the OMB memo seems to have put the Obama Administration on the defensive. 

Major news outlets including the N.Y Times, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press reported the uproar regarding the memo. Here is how the Associated Press described the controversy surrounding the memo:

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document.

The nine-page memo is a compilation of opinions made by a dozen federal agencies and departments during an internal review before the EPA issued a finding in April that greenhouse gases pose dangers to public health and welfare.

That finding could set in motion for the first time the regulation of six heat-trapping gases from cars and trucks, factories and other sources under the Clean Air Act.

On Capital Hill, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson faced questions from Senators regarding the memo (video of her testimony). The memo was described by some as the "smoking gun" that supported Republican and business claims that regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would have a devastating impact on the economy.

The memo also called into question EPA's claim that the scientific underpinnings for its proposed endangerment finding made an "overwhelming" case for regulation due to the threats presented by climate change. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the memo criticized EPA's scientific support for the endangerment finding:

“The amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty,” the memo reads.

After the release of the memo and the ensuing uproar, the Wall Street Journal suggested EPA may be wavering in its commitment to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such conclusions seem to be supported by statements made by  the Director,of OMB Peter Orszag, on his blog.  

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA’s proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded...

Perhaps more importantly, OMB concluded review of the preliminary finding several weeks ago, which then allowed EPA to move forward with the proposed finding. As I wrote on this blog on April 17, the "proposed finding is carefully rooted in both law and science." I also noted: "By itself, the EPA’s proposed finding imposes no regulation. (Indeed, by itself, it requires nothing at all.) If and when the endangerment finding is made final, the EPA will turn to the question whether and how to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles." 

Orszag seems to be going out of his way to minimize the significance of the endangerment finding.  Such statement belittle the fact that if the endangerment finding is finalized it will set in motion significant regulation of sources under the Clean Air Act.  

After reading the the coverage, I just don't understand all the fuss. Of course regulation under the Clean Air Act would have dramatic impacts on the economy. U.S. EPA's Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPR) sets forth numerous examples of the difficulties and issues associated with regulation under the Act.   Even though the ANPR was written during the Bush years, the issues it identifies remain valid.   I have written numerous posts discussing how the structure of the Clean Air Act is ill-suited for regulating greenhouse gases. 

Lets face it, the Obama Administration understands these issues as well.  That is why it has been using the threat of regulation to leverage passage of cap and trade legislation.  EPA Administrator Jackson reiterated support for cap and trade legislation today. 

Thus far the Administration has taken very slow and deliberate steps toward regulation.  Many critical decisions related to climate change are under "EPA review " or in the draft stage. To date, environmental groups have been content to let the Administration move forward at its own pace.  They are convinced regulation is inevitable. 

How long can EPA realistically string out the decisions on whether to address climate change under the Clean Air Act? The longer the string out the decision, the less effective EPA's threats are in leveraging Congress.  At some point, Congress may just be convinced EPA is bluffing. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

On Monday I passed the LEED AP exam for New Construction after about a month and half of studying.  I can't tell you how relieved I was when the computer screen at the testing center had the word "PASS" on it.  After the U.S. Green Building Council's  (USGBC) launch of LEED v3, I am already known as a "Legacy AP" even though my accreditation is a mere three days old.  Even though the ink hasn't dried yet on my AP credentials, I'd like to make a few observations of LEED v3. 

USGBC  launched LEED v3 on April 27, 2009.  The new version includes changes to the scoring system for projects, the LEED accreditation process and the LEED on-line tools for administering projects.   There were three major changes made to the scoring process under v3:

• Harmonization- the new prerequisite/credit structure tries to take the various LEED rating systems (Core & Shell, New Construction, etc.) and equalize requirements for obtaining certain credits under each structure
• Weighting of Credits- greater priority was given under the scoring structure to energy efficiency and climate change
• Regionalization- new bonus points are awarded if your project achieves certain credits that are deemed priorities in the region the project is located

Bike Racks v. Brownfields

For new construction and major renovation projects, LEED NC v2.2 (old system) scored projects on a 69 point scale. Under LEED NC v2.2 achieving most credits you were awarded one point, which led to a great deal of criticism of the old scoring system. For example-

• Putting up bike racks- if you put some bike racks in front the building = 1 point
• Redevelopment of a brownfield- if you redeveloped a former brownfield with hazardous substance contamination that cost $4 million to address = 1 point

It was my hope that LEED v3 would address such inequities in the scoring system.  Unfortunately, it appears those still persist.  Perhaps I am partial to brownfield redevelopment, but I simply don't understand why LEED v3 still only gives 1 possible point for achieving this credit.  To me this was the single biggest oversight in the revamping of the LEED scoring structure.

With the release of LEED v3 USGBC tried to give greater weight to energy efficiency and climate change.  As examples, EA Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance went from 10 total possible points to 19.  EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy went from 3 possible points to 7. 

I understand the prioritization of climate change and energy efficiency which really impact the overall life cycle of a building.  However, I come at this from an environmental perspective given my background.  To me we should be encouraging addressing thousands of historically contaminated sites that liter our urban landscapes.  Due to the significant costs and liability issues associated with brownfields, many developers stay away from these projects all together.  

LEED v3 offered an opportunity to better promote brownfield development.  My recommendation would to have been to provide at least 4 possible points for brownfield redevelopment.  This would be equal to the new scoring system available points for WE Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping. The points could be awarded based up on the remediation costs associated with the property.  There is a correlation between remediation costs and levels of contamination, which would mean projects addressing more extensive contamination get more points.

Regionalization

Perhaps my focus on brownfields stems from living in the industrial Midwest where numerous abandoned factories occupy our cities.  LEED v3 also incorporates a new bonus point pool to recognize regional prioritization.  A project can achieve up to 4 bonus points for achieving certain LEED credits.  This would mean brownfield redevelopment could get 2 points instead of 1.  Still not enough in my mind, but at least 2 is greater than just 1. 

USGBC has created a spreadsheet first separated by State and then by zip code for virtually the entire U.S.  You can go into the spreadsheet and look up the zip code for your project and there will be six credits that have been prioritized by local USBBC Chapters.  For example, in the Cleveland area here are the six prioritized credits:

1. Sustainable Sites Credit 6.1- Stormwater Quantity- reduction in rate and flow of stormwater post development
2. Sustainable Sites Credit 6.2- Stormwater Quality- implementation of controls to capture 90% of the flow and remove 80% TSS
3. Energy and Atmosphere Credit 2- On-site Renewable Energy- provide a minimum of 3% of energy needs from on-site renewable energy
4. Water Efficiency Credit 2-  Innovative Wastewater- reduce generation of wastewater by 50%
5. Materials and Resources Credit 2- Construction Waste Management- achieve reduction of 75% of C&D waste
6. Materials and Resources Credit 6- Use Rapidly Renewable Materials- 2.5% of the cost of materials used on the project should be from rapidly renewable construction materials

I scratch my head at these regional priorities for the Cleveland area.  I am certainly okay with promoting renewable energy, but there are other critical issues that face Cleveland.  Why not prioritize these credits?

1. Sustainable Sites Credit 3 Brownfields- The Cuyahoga County Commissioners Department of Development provides the following statistics about brownfields:

   [Based on a US EPA funded study]- Approximately 4,623 acres of brownfields in Cuyahoga County with the majority of that land located in the City of Cleveland and its surrounding inner ring suburbs. Cleveland, alone, has approximately 350 brownfields and an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 condemned structures. Additionally, the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission found that 40,000 acres, or 14%, of the County’s land, has at some time been devoted to an industry that has historically been known to be a higher risk for environmental contamination.

2. Sustainable Sites Credit 5 Protect and Restore Habitat and Maximize Open Space- it is really tough to find remaining greenspace in Cleveland.  It is estimated that 95% of the land in Cuyahoga County has been developed. The lack of open space/greenspace creates other issues such as flooding and stormwater control.  This would seem like a prime credit to be prioritized in the Cleveland Region.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

These are great times to investigating potential brownfield projects in Ohio.  The State has two pots of money available under its Clean Ohio brownfield program.  1)  the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund (CORF); and 2) the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund (COAF).  CORF is a competitive grant process where applications are pooled into rounds and the top projects in that round receive funding.  Under COAF, projects are evaluated on an individual basis and decisions are made by the Director of the Department of Development.

COAF- Areas Eligible to Apply for Funding is Greatly Expanded

This month, the Ohio Department of Development announced a major change to COAF-greatly expanding areas eligible to submit COAF applications.  Properties eligible to request  COAF funding are those located in a "inner city area", a "labor surplus area" or a "situational distress area" as defined by O.R.C. 122.65(H).  Each year the Ohio Department of Development releases a map of the State that identifies which areas fall under one of the three categories and could apply. 

On May 1, 2009, the Ohio Priority Investment Area Map was modified to reflect the recent changes made to the Federal Labor Surplus map. Under the old map 41 counties and certain cities were designated "priority investment areas" based on one of the three categories.  The new map designates 83 counties in Ohio as Labor Surplus Areas. This includes all of Cuyahoga County and most of the surrounding Counties. 

All areas designated on the Priority Investment Map are therefore eligible to file applications for the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund for assessment grants of up to $300,000 and cleanup grants of up to $750,000. COAF will have approximately $12 million for new grants in the coming year. Applications can be submitted on a rolling basis (no deadline). 

The Ohio Department of Development also modified the policies governing COAF.  One notable change is the prioritization of Phase II Environmental Assessment projects.  Here is what the Department said about this change:

In order to maximize assistance to distressed communities during the economic crisis and meet a critical need to prepare sites for cleanup and redevelopment, the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund will now reserve 75% for funding Phase II Environmental Assessments grants and 25% for funding cleanup grants.

CORF's - Redevelopment Ready Track

If you are looking at a project with much higher clean up costs than $750,000, then CORF is still a great option.  The State recently provided more flexibility to the program.  Last summer, the Ohio Department of Development made a major change to the CORF program by adding the "redevelopment ready track." Before this change an applicant for CORF had to identify in its application a committed end user post clean up. Under the "redevelopment ready track" an applicant could qualify for up to $2 million in grant funds to pay for clean up costs even without an end user.

A significant amount of cleanup funding is available in the upcoming rounds of CORF. Funding for Round 7 (deadline July 25th) and Round 8 will total $48 million in the coming year ($24 million per round), which is the largest amount the program has experienced in its history.

Unlike other States, Ohio has a lot of funding available for brownfield investigation and clean up.  Over the last year the State has increased the flexibility in the program and expanded areas within the State eligible for funding.  While the economy is down, it is a great time to explore development options for brownfield sites.  As the economy comes back the competitiveness of these programs will increase. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks