pittsburgh: an environmental transformationpittsburgh: an environmental transformation ......

Quarterly Publication of the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania

WINTER 2006

Quarterly Publication of the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania

PITTSBURGH:An Environmental Transformation

In This Issue:

� Alcosan: The Next Chapter inEnvironmental Stewardship

� Air Pollution in Pittsburgh: A History

� Pittsburgh and the Manufactured GasIndustry

� Innovations in Clean Coal Technologyat the Reliant Seward Station

� Steel Industry Environmental Progress

� What’s New in Source Review?

In This Issue:

� Alcosan: The Next Chapter inEnvironmental Stewardship

� Air Pollution in Pittsburgh: A History

� Pittsburgh and the Manufactured GasIndustry

� Innovations in Clean Coal Technologyat the Reliant Seward Station

� Steel Industry Environmental Progress

� What’s New in Source Review?

Contrasting Views of Pittsburgh's Fifth Avenue corridor, both taken at 11AMon a mid-November morning. Cover photo is from 2006; insert is from 1945.Contrasting Views of Pittsburgh's Fifth Avenue corridor, both taken at 11AMon a mid-November morning. Cover photo is from 2006; insert is from 1945.

PITTSBURGH:An Environmental Transformation

4GUEST EDITORIALby E. Joseph Duckett, PhD, PESNC-Lavalin America, Inc.

6ALCOSAN: THE NEXT CHAPTER INENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPby Nancy E. BarylakAllegheny County Sanitary Authority

9AIR POLLUTION IN PITTSBURGH:A HISTORYEdited by Roger Westman, PhDAllegheny County Health Department

12PITTSBURGH AND THE MANUFACTUREDGAS INDUSTRYby Joel A. Tarr, PhDCarnegie Mellon University

16INNOVATIONS IN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGYAT THE RELIANT SEWARD STATIONby Thomas C. RobertsReliant Energy

20STEEL INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESSby Douglas P. Boyea and William S. KubiakUnited States Steel Corporation

25WHAT’S NEW IN SOURCE REVIEW?by Harry F. Klodowski, Esq.Law Offices of Harry Klodowski

30ENGINEERING THE FUTURE/ESWP PANELby Chriss Swaney

CONTENTSFEATURES ENGINEERS' SOCIETY

OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIAThe Pittsburgh Engineers' Building

337-4th AvenuePittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Telephone: 412-261-0710 Fax: 412-261-1606

Pittsburgh ENGINEER is published by the Engineers' Societyof Western Pennsylvania. The ideas and opinions expressedwithin Pittsburgh ENGINEER are those of the writers and notnecessarily the members, officers, directors of ESWP.SOCIETY Officers:PresidentMichael G. Bock, PE. Esq, Schnader, Harrison, Segal &Lewis, LLP1st Vice PresidentAlex G. Sciulli, PE, Mellon Financial Corporation2nd Vice PresidentAnthonyM. DiGioia Jr. PhD, PE,DiGioia, Gray & Associates LLCTreasurerDominick J. DeSalvo, DeSalvo Enterprises Inc.SecretaryDeborah A. Lange, PhD, PE, The Steinbrenner Institute forEnvironmental Education & Research, Carnegie MellonUniversityPast PresidentCarl W. Schwartz, Westinghouse Electric Company

Directors:George F. Babcoke, U.S. Steel CorporationMichael G. Brennan, PE, AstorinoThomas E. Donatelli, PE, Allegheny CountyBernard J. Fedak, PE, ConsultantWayne A. Johnson, PE, R.T. Patterson CompanyKenneth P. Marino, PE, Wayne Crouse, Inc.A. Robert Necciai, PE, Orbital Engineering Inc.Seth L. Pearlman, PE, DGI-Menard Inc.Raymond P. Wattras, Michael Baker Jr., Inc.Michael P. Roarty, PE, Mascaro Construction Company LPDaniel J. Tis, S/D Engineers Inc.Brad Wolf, PE, Director, Veolia WaterMyint Lwin, IBC Chairman, Federal Highway AdministrationKumar Sinha, IWC Chairman, Bechtel Power

Publications CommitteeThe ESWP produces a range of publications as a service to itsmembers, and Affiliated Technical Societies. ESWP Publicationsare supported by an all-volunteer Publications Committee.

Guest EditorE. Joseph Duckett, PhD, PE; SNC-Lavalin America, Inc.Assistant EditorRoger Dhonau, PE, SE TechnologiesChairDaniel J. Tis, S/D Engineers Inc.Editor-in-ChiefDave Teorsky, ESWPArt Direction & LayoutDouglas Smith, Phoenix PublicationsRob Loree, Phoenix PublicationsDave Moniot, S/D Engineers Inc.Tiffany Merovich-Winter, Aker KvaernerMichael P. Roarty, Mascaro Construction Company, LPChriss Swaney, Carnegie Mellon University School ofEngineering

Cover image: Larry Rippel. Inset: Library and Archives Division,Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA

Timeline: Environmental Progress in Western PA: by Jayme Graham, QEPJayme Graham is the Planning Section Manager of the Allegheny County HealthDepartment’s Air Quality Program. She is a Past Chairman of the Allegheny Sectionof the Air & Waste Management Association.

Pittsburgh EENNGGIINNEEEERR4

Timeline: Environmental Progress in Western Pennsylvania

Guess where the first U.S. sand filtration system toproduce safe, typhoid-free, drinking water wasbuilt? Or where the first scrubber system to removesulfur dioxide from a coal-fired power plant was

installed? Or where the first Earth Day was held? Or whereinternationally recognized advancements in industrial pollutioncontrol were developed? Or where one of the earliest examplesof “Brownfield” development occurred? Or where the firstcertified “Green” convention center is located?

If you guessed Pittsburgh to all of these questions, you wouldbe 100% right. Our City and region have been the spawninggrounds for environmental improvements that have not onlytransformed Pittsburgh, but have also helped clean up urbanareas around the world. We are a long way from being “hellwith the lid off ” or the “smoky city” as we had been dubbedin the past.

“Our City and region have been the spawning grounds for

environmental improvements that have not only transformed

Pittsburgh, but have also helped clean up urban

areas around the world.”

Welcome to this environmental issue of Pittsburgh Engineer.We have assembled the articles of this issue both to highlightkey environmental advancements in our town and to announcea special event that will occur here next Summer. TheCentennial International Conference of the Air & WasteManagement Association (A&WMA) will be held at thePittsburgh Convention Center on June 26-29, 2007. It will bea large (3,000 +) gathering of environmental professionals fromacross the world. There will be big name speakers, lots of tech-nical papers, a world premier movie and an exhibit hall filled

with the latest and greatest environmental technology. It’s opento anyone with an interest in air pollution control, waste man-agement or environmental improvement. To find out moreabout the Conference and how you could participate as aregistrant, speaker, sponsor or exhibitor, check the A&WMAwebsite at www.awma.org.

“The Centennial InternationalConference of the Air & Waste

Management Association (A&WMA)will be held at the Pittsburgh

Convention Center on June 26-29, 2007.”

All of the articles grouped into this issue of Pittsburgh Engineercover environmental subjects, but they do so from severalangles, reflecting the wide range of subjects under the environ-mental umbrella. A timeline prepared by Jayme Graham runsthroughout the magazine, listing key dates and events in ourregion’s environmental history. Our wastewater treatment histo-ry is traced in Nancy Barylak’s piece on the Allegheny CountySanitary Authority (Alcosan), one of the largest treatment worksin the country. Roger Westman, has edited a review of ourremarkable history in controlling air pollution.

“Our area has been home to manyadvancements in industrial processes, energy production

and pollution controls.”

One of the keys to pollution control is developing technologiesthat are either fundamentally less polluting or that capture pol-lutants before they are discharged. Our area has been home to

GUEST EDITORIALby E. Joseph Duckett, PhD, PE

SNC-Lavalin America, Inc.

1804:Town Burgess Neville called for higher chimneys to lessensmoke problems.

1815:Local newspapers advocated a program of pollution control.


many advancements in industrial processes, energy productionand pollution control. Joel Tarr tells us about the history ofindustrial gas production as both an environmental improve-ment over conventional coal combustion and a reminder thatthe by-products of even improved energy technologies can stillbe problematic. Tom Roberts describes a very recent major ener-gy project in which circulating fluidized bed combustion isbeing used to generate electricity with low emissions while usingwaste coal as fuel. Bill Kubiak and Doug Boyea describe theprogress made by the steel industry (much of it developed here)to reduce the environmental impacts of steel making.

“Environmental changes, improvements, regulations

and technologies areworks in progress.”

In keeping with the Centennial of A&WMA, this issue empha-sizes the history of our region. Environmental changes,improvements, regulations and technologies are works in

progress. Harry Klodowski explains some recently proposedchanges in air emission regulation (called New Source Review)that should be of interest to anyone concerned about the eco-nomic and environmental health of our region.

As our cover depicts, Pittsburgh has made an enormous trans-formation over the past century, most of it over the past 50years. We hope this issue helps us to appreciate what has beendone here and to motivate ourselves to keep it up.

Many thanks to each of the authors noted above who made thisenvironmental issue of Pittsburgh Engineer possible. A specialnote of appreciation for Roger Dhonau, P.E. (ChiefEnvironmental Engineer, SE Technologies Inc.) who assisted inevery phase of putting this issue together.

To our readers, we hope you learn as much as we did and areas impressed with the remarkable environmental heritage ofPittsburgh! �

Joe Duckett is the Director of Environmental Engineering forSNC-Lavalin America, Inc. He is a Past President of ESWP andPast Chairman of the Allegheny Mountain Section of theAir & Waste Management Association.

1835:Factories lined the Monongahela River wharf and steamboats traveled up and downthe rivers. Pittsburgh's leaders in using steam were cotton factories, its third largestindustry. Iron and iron products were the number one industry.(Photo: courtesy of Carnegie Library)

SNC-Lavalin America6585 Penn Ave.Pgh, PA 15206 (412) 363-9000

Engineering, Procurement& Construction Management

Metals • Chemicals • Glass •Utilities • Environmental

5Pittsburgh EENNGGIINNEEEERR Winter 2006

In the early 1900s, area waterways were so polluted theynot only caused a myriad of diseases, some fatal, but car-ried debris and other contaminants that choked the lifearound and under the water.

Fast forward to 2006, recreational uses of the rivers and streamsare the focus of the region’s transformation, fish once found inlakes are propagating locally and mixed use development alongthe three rivers has taken on a new significance.

Getting Started

Much of this change began when the Allegheny CountySanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) began primary treatmentoperations in 1959 removing sediment, floating debris andsewage that once emptied directly into creeks, streams andrivers. ALCOSAN is a unique institution in the Pittsburgh area.It is an example of inter-municipal coordination for environ-mental improvement. Serving the City of Pittsburgh as well as82 neighboring municipalities, ALCOSAN is one of the 10largest and most advanced wastewater treatment facilities in the

U.S. The Authority was formed 60 years ago and broke groundfor its plant along the Ohio River in the Woods Run area ofPittsburgh in 1956. For 50 years, ALCOSAN has played a piv-otal role in cleaning the rivers.

“...Allegheny County SanitaryAuthority (ALCOSAN) began primarytreatment operations in 1959...”

By 1972, secondary operations, the biological process forsewage treatment, began discharging water cleaner than theOhio river itself. Today, ALCOSAN’s motto of EnvironmentalExcellence Beyond Clean Water acts as a guide for all engineer-ing, construction and operating activities.

Continuing the Improvement

For example, ALCOSAN creates an average 44,000 dry tonsdaily of biosolids, the sludge by-product of the wastewater treat-ment process. While the cheapest, and most convenient, methodof disposing of the biosolids is landfilling, ALCOSAN has takentwo approaches that are better for the environment. First, since1991, 35,000 acres of the biosolids have been land applied inWestern Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio as a soil amendment forstrip mined land and agricultural feed crops producing fastergrowth and reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.

“It is an example of inter-municipal coordination for environmental

improvement.”

Secondly, ALCOSAN also has two fluidized bed incinerators atits 56 acre wastewater treatment facility located on Pittsburgh’sNorthside. Almost 14,000 dry tons, or 32 percent of thebiosolids produced last year were incinerated in these advancedcombustion furnaces. Waste heat from the incinerators is recov-



ALCOSAN:The Next Chapter in Environmental Stewardship

by Nancy E. BarylakAllegheny County Sanitary Authority

1850:When wood became too scarce to be used for producing iron, Henry Clay Frick organized an industry to use coal instead ofwood. By the 1850s regular editorials were appearing in the Pittsburgh Gazette complaining about air pollution.

Children sit along a littered streambed prior to ALCOSAN efforts toclean waterways

ered in the form of 24,000 pounds perhour of steam which is used to heat on-site buildings. In addition, ALCOSANhas on-site power generation capabilitiesto create 2,750 KW maximum (enoughto power 27,500 100-watt light bulbs)using the biosolids as fuel.

Ash from the incineration process hasproven environmentally beneficial for sev-eral uses. The ash has been mixed withstandard compost and is available commer-cially for the home gardener and landscap-ing companies. Another use, still in thepreliminary investigation stages, involvesmixing the ash with other materials for usein creating bricks or paving products.

Moving Forward

The next phase of work ALCOSAN willundertake is expected to be the largestpublic works program this region has everfaced. Aren’t the waterways clean enoughyou ask? Appearances can be deceivingand in this case, the work of cleaning thewaterways is not completed.

Since 1992, ALCOSAN has been plan-

ning and implementing steps to addressrevised federal Clean Water Act require-ments that will benefit the public andimpact the region’s ecosystem.

“The next phase of workALCOSAN will undertakeis expected to be thelargest public works program this regionhas ever faced.”

Unfortunately, at a price tag of almost $3 billion – and higher sewer rates –ALCOSAN is challenged with educatingthe public about the problem and solutions.

Simply put, the 20 year program willreduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs)by 80%. These flows carry both sewageand stormwater. But when the lines fill tocapacity, these flows, albeit dilute, emptyinto area waterways untreated. The dis-charges carry debris such as litter, grit,run-off containing pesticides, herbicidesand other chemicals, and up to 17 billion

gallons of sewage overflow yearly!

Another requirement is the total elimina-tion of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)that occur when municipal owned andALCOSAN sewer lines carrying onlydomestic and industrial wastes becomefilled to capacity and overflow untreatedinto area waterways.

Solutions include creating storage untilcapacity becomes available in the sewerlines, capturing more pollutants such asfloatables (e.g. plastics) and heavier materi-al (e.g. grit) at the point of discharge,installing more sewer lines to increase con-veyance to the treatment facility and creat-ing more treatment capacity at the plant.

Implementing the solutions will require amix of unique and challenging engineeringdesigns. Most options favor the reductionof CSOs versus eliminating SSOs. This isbecause eliminating SSOs would requireboth capture and secondary treatment.

Going Green

While designing additional capacity at theplant is on-going, preliminary engineeringis under way to create ALCOSAN’s firstgreen building, a new Operations andMaintenance (O&M) Center. The cur-rent O & M facility will be torn down tomake way for additional primary treat-ment capabilities to handle the increasedflow from a current average of 200 milliongallons per day (MGD) to a proposed 275MGD dry weather and 800 MGD wetweather treatment capacity.

Other small, but significant, environ-mental actions ALCOSAN has imple-mented includes the purchase of hybridfuel vehicles, as well as expanding its in-house recycling program beyond paper toinclude light bulbs, batteries, printer car-tridges, metals, oil, antifreeze, and plasticand steel drums.

Pittsburgh EENNGGIINNEEEERR Winter 2006 7


1862:Anthony Trollope declared that “Pittsburgh is, withoutexception, the blackest place I ever saw.”

Late 1860s:An ordinance passed prohibiting the use of bituminous coal inlocomotives.

‘57 Belvedere is dwarfed by 10 foot diameter interceptor pipe (December 18, 1957) (Courtesy Alcosan)

“Significant progress in cleaningthe rivers and streams in AlleghenyCounty began over half a century agowhen ALCOSAN began operations.”

Significant progress in cleaning the rivers and streams inAllegheny County began over half a century ago whenALCOSAN began operations. ALCOSAN will continue to leadthe region through the necessary and difficult changes which willimprove public health and provide economic and environmentalbenefits for everyone. �

Nancy E. Barylak is the Manager of Public Relations ofALCOSAN3300 Prebble Avenue, PA15233



1868:Atlantic Monthly, January, 1868 in an article by JamesParton entitled Pittsburgh, described the city as “hell withthe lid taken off.”

1875:Andrew Carnegie’s new Edgar Thomson works received itsfirst order — 2,000 steel rails.

A day shot of the ALCOSAN plant looking towards the McKees RocksBridge. The 56 acre plant extends beyond the barges along the river(past the bridge).

The Fork of the Ohio

Since rivers were the superhighways oftheir time, the struggle to control theOhio Valley focused on the fork of theriver at the spot named after William Pitt,the King's First Minister. Here theAllegheny and Monongahela Rivers meetto form the Ohio River. The Colonists,the Indians, the French and the British allfought for the area. But by 1776Pittsburgh’s fame came only as a stoppingplace on the trip west. In the late 1700sJames O’Hara, Pittsburgh’s first industri-

alist, decided to change that by starting aglass manufacturing plant.

The Boom Times

By 1835 factories lined the MonongahelaRiver and steamboats enabled travel bothup and down the rivers. Pittsburgh’sthird largest industry was cotton. Ironwas the number one industry by 1840.The cotton industry declined as the firstrailroad brought in cheaper cotton prod-ucts, but the railroads also opened moremarkets for iron products, creating more

jobs. In the 1840s the first wave of immi-grants came to fill those jobs, includingthe family of William Carnegie. His sonAndrew took a job at the age of ten in acotton factory as a bobbin boy. He waspromoted to engine tender, took a job asa telegraph messenger boy, became a tele-graph operator, and then an office man-ager. When the Pennsylvania Railroadopened its own telegraph office, AndrewCarnegie moved there. Rising rapidly hebecame a successful railroad executive bythe age 24.



Air Pollution in Pittsburgh:A History

Edited by Roger Westman, PhDAllegheny County Health Department

Phillips Power Station along the Ohio River across from Leetsdale, PA was the site of thefirst Flue Gas Desulfurization Scrubber on a Utility Power Plant in the U.S. The plantwas owned at that time by Duquesne Light. The white plume from the stack is water vaporfrom the wet scrubber process. (Photo courtesy Reliant Energy)

1880s:H. J. Heinz, PPG, Dravo, Westinghouse and ALCOAstart and succeeded in Pittsburgh. Allegheny Light, theforerunner of Duquesne Light, offered electric light to anotherwise dark city.

1890s:Typhoid levels were highest in the country: over 100 casesper 100,000 persons, three times the average rate for U.S.cities. Among the causes were lack of public sewers anddrinking water treatment.

When wood became too scarce to be usedfor producing iron, Henry Clay Frickorganized an industry to use coal insteadof wood. Just south of Pittsburgh exten-sive coal deposits became the center ofthe coke industry. However, by the1850s regular editorials were appearing inthe Pittsburgh Gazette urging actionabout the air pollution.

“In 1895 the City ofPittsburgh passed itsfirst smoke control

ordinance.”

In 1872 while selling railroad bonds inEngland, Andrew Carnegie met HenryBessemer who convinced him that hisnew steelmaking process would work inAmerica. Andrew Carnegie returnedhome with a proposal to build the mostefficient steel plant in the world. Withthe help of banker Judge Thomas Mellon,Carnegie built the Edgar ThomsonWorks on the Monongahela River inBraddock. These were boom times as thehighly superior steel made new railroads,longer bridges and taller buildings possi-ble. Both Carnegie and Frick turned toEastern Europe to recruit immigrantworkers to keep the mills going.

Pittsburgh also saw H. J. Heinz, PPG,Dravo, Westinghouse and ALCOA startand succeed. But the air was gettingworse. Allegheny Light offered electriclight to an otherwise dark city. In 1895the City of Pittsburgh passed its firstsmoke control ordinance, but it had fewpenalties and the courts declared itinvalid in 1902.

In 1903 Duquesne Light was formed tounify the many electric systems. George

Westinghouse's inventions and belief inalternating current ended the control bythe Edison electric companies. Just twoyears earlier the Frick and Carnegie inter-ests consolidated to became United StatesSteel (USS), the world’s largest corpora-tion. With all this came pollution.

Growing Discontent

The people of Pittsburgh wanted a better,less polluted city. A new 1906 smokecontrol ordinance was also declaredinvalid by 1911. Andrew Carnegie, nowretired and wealthy, gave the city a libraryand a museum, and endowed a technicalschool in his name.

World War I brought another boom tothe steel industry, but its end brought theGreat Steel Strike of 1919. It was notuntil 1935 that the Congress of IndustrialOrganizations (CIO) was able to succeedin organizing the workers. Just three yearslater, the Works Progress Administration(WPA) set up one hundred air samplingstations to measure SO2 and dustfall.

Pittsburgh’s Renaissance

In 1941 a commission chaired byPittsburgh Councilman Abraham Wolkcited health, destruction of vegetationand the economy as reasons for takingaction on air pollution. An ordinancewas passed that relied on the Ringlemann

Chart to regulate smoke, but also set anemission standard for fly ash, requiredsmokeless solid fuel, and regulated newfuel-burning equipment.

“...a rebuilding whichbecame knownas Pittsburgh'sRenaissance.”

In 1945 David L. Lawrence was electedmayor of Pittsburgh and pledged to clearthe air. Along with Richard K. Mellon, healso led Pittsburgh into effective floodcontrol and a rebuilding which becameknown as Pittsburgh’s Renaissance.

But smoke control had to wait for theend of World War II for enforcement. In1947 all one and two family dwellingswere required to use natural gas for homeheating. Allegheny County joined theCity in 1949 by adopting a CountySmoke Control Ordinance. Dieselsreplaced coal-fired engines in locomotivesand riverboats by 1952 and by 1956about 90% of the homes had switched tonatural gas. The days with streetlights onat noon due to the dark, polluted skieswere coming to an end.

“The days with street-lights on at noon dueto the dark, pollutedskies were coming

to an end.”

The case for cleaner air was highlightedby an episode in a small town 28 milessouth of Pittsburgh in an adjacentCounty. In October 1948, Donora expe-rienced a severe stagnation for several

10


1895:The City of Pittsburgh passed its firstsmoke control ordinance. It had fewpenalties and was declared invalid bythe courts in 1902.

Highland #2 Reservoirconstruction, 1898.

Credit: City of PittsburghWater Authority

Pittsburgh EENNGGIINNEEEERR

days. Emissions from its steel and wiremill, zinc plant, and sulfuric acid plantblackened the air. Before it was over 43%of the population had become ill and 20were dead.

Allegheny County Takesthe Lead

The A l l egheny County Hea l thDepartment took over the duties of theCity Smoke Control Bureau in 1957 andassumed responsibility for air pollutioncontrol throughout the County. The1960 County ordinance had the strongestparticulate control regulations in thenation. During the 1960s it became evi-dent that air contaminants other thanjust dust and smoke were important. TheCounty enacted new regulations, includ-ing ones on gaseous pollutants, in 1970.

Federal Legislation

The first federal Clean Air Act with realmandates and deadlines was passed in1970. Congress allowed only five years,until July 1975, to reverse a hundredyears of industrial pollution. Because ofAllegheny County’s long history of airpollution control, Pennsylvania grantedthe County authority to continue its ownprogram. In response to the Clean AirAct, the County passed more comprehen-sive regulations in June 1972.

The Monongahela River Valley

Of specific concern was the 25-milestretch of the Monongahela River with-in the County. Seven steel mills lined theriverbanks including the world’s largestcoke plant at Clairton, owned by USS.In Braddock, air quality exceeded theparticulate standard about every thirdday. There were about a dozen high-air-

pollution alerts a year requiring industri-al curtailments.

“The area is now meeting ozone and thePM10 standards whileworking to attain thenewest standards.”

Major efforts were undertaken by USS tocontrol its 21 coal-fired boilers andnumerous steelmaking facilities in thevalley. In the early 1970s, DuquesneLight stepped forward to pioneer SO2removal from power plants in the USwith the installation of a 90% efficientscrubber on their Phillips Power Station.A second Duquesne Light power plantwas equipped with a scrubber in 1978.Jones and Laughlin Steel also began amore vigorous clean up of its coke plantand steel facility in 1975.

Continued Improvement

By the mid-1970s, emissions of particu-lates and SO2 had declined 65% and57%, respectively. By the late 1970s thefrequent air pollution alerts had ended. InJune 1984, Pennsylvania implemented anautomobile I/M program for South-western Pennsylvania under the threat offederal highway funds being withheld.Steel industry emission reductions, cou-pled with strict controls on othersources, helped dramatically improve airquality. The area is now meeting ozoneand the PM10 standards while working toattain the newest standards.

The County also established a strictasbestos removal control program in1983, and now regulates other hazardouspollutants per the 1990 Clean Air Act. In

1987 it began to regulate abrasive blast-ing operations to limit emissions of dust,lead and free silica.

The Future

Although the work is not finished, thepeople of Pittsburgh and AlleghenyCounty are proud of their accomplish-ments in cleaning up the air and creatinga beautiful and healthy community.Today they enjoy having major indus-tries, universities, premier cultural insti-tutions, and great natural resources alongwith blue skies. �

Prepared by Roger Westman, Allegheny

County Health Department. The editor

wishes to acknowledge the makers of the film,

PITTSBURGH, An American Industrial

City, produced for Duquesne Light for much

of the material in this brief history. References

include Clean Air, The Policies and Politics of

Pollution Control by Charles O. Jones,

University of Pittsburgh Press, 1975.



1903:Duquesne Light was formed to unify the many electric systems. George Westinghouse's inventions and belief in alternatingcurrent allowed longer transmission lines and lower costs.



Pittsburghand theManufacturedGas Industryby Joel A. Tarr, PhDCarnegie Mellon University

Coal gasification is an energy-produc-ing technology that is drawingincreased interest today from vari-ous energy companies faced by

declining reserves of petroleum and natural gas.Many of those exploring what they view as anew technology have little idea of the role thatmanufactured gas (or town gas) played inAmerican history. Manufactured gas was one ofthe most critical energy sources and fuels thatprovided American cities, as well as other citiesthroughout the world, with light and energy

during much of the 19th and into the 20th cen-tury. Demonstrations and applications of gaslighting began in the United States in 1802,based on European developments. The first cityto develop a gas lighting system was Baltimore,which in 1816 granted the Gas Light Companya franchise to light the city streets with gas.Others cities quickly followed - the U.S. Censusreported 30 manufactured gas plants in 1850,221 in 1859, 390 in 1869, 742 in 1889, 877 in1904, and 1,296 in 1909, although the actualnumber was probably considerably higher.

1907:A drinking water filtration system was put in place at the CityWaterworks, providing immediate relief to the Pittsburghtyphoid crisis.

1903:United States Steel (USS) was formed with the consoli-dation of the Frick and Carnegie interests to become thelargest corporation in the world.

Manufactured Gas Plant, Buffalo, NY. (Photo courtesy of Joel Tarr)

Manufactured Gas plant in Seattle, Washington, constructed 1906. (Photo courtesy of Joel Tarr)

The history of manufactured gas inPittsburgh began in 1827, when the citycouncils granted a William Griffiths “theexclusive right to provide the city withgas light.” In 1837, after many delays, thePittsburgh Gas Works began supplyinggas for streetlights and residences. Thecompany was operated as a joint-stockcompany first managed by a board oftrustees appointed by the councils andlater by a board half appointed by thestockholders. Over the next severaldecades other gas companies were givenfranchises, and by 1878 there were five inthe city, the largest of which was thePittsburgh Gas Company, with otherslocated in the west, east, and north sidesof the city.

“Coal gasification(Manufactured gas)...wasone of the most criticalenergy sources that pro-vided...light and energyduring the 19th and into

the 20th century.”

These plants produced both coal gas andcarbureted water gas (blue gas enrichedwith liquid hydrocarbons), using localand regional bituminous coal suppliesthat were among the best in the nationfor gas production. The gas they pro-duced was initially largely used for streetlighting and domestic lighting as well asfor cooking. Limited amounts, it appears(although the records concerning this arescarce), was used for industrial fuel,although in 1892 Andrew Carnegieinvested in a mill in Bellefont,Pennsylvania to be run on manufacturedgas. During the late 19th century themanufactured gas companies encoun-tered increasing competition fromregional natural gas wells and from elec-tric lighting. By the 1880s, for instance,street lighting only accounted for 10% ofnational gas revenues and gas companiesattempted to diversify into other energymarkets such as heating and appliances.Brown’s Directory of American GasCompanies lists few public lamps for thePittsburgh manufactured gas firms in1890. The South Side Gas Companyserviced 400 public lamps in 1890, butby 1894 only had thirty-seven.

“...many firms and resi-dences shifted back from

natural gas to coalprimarily in the late1880s and 1890s.”

Regional natural gas reserves of the region,however, were rapidly depleted, and manyfirms and residences shifted back fromnatural gas to coal primarily in the late1880s and 1890s. The return to dirty coalas a fuel instead of clean natural gas result-ed in a sharp deterioration of Pittsburgh’sair quality. Some saw the possibility ofsubstituting manufactured gas made fromPittsburgh coal for depleted natural gassupplies. George Westinghouse, for one,had experimented with a process of manu-facturing gas from both anthracite andbituminous coal in the late 1880s. In1894, the Philadelphia Company, thecity's largest natural gas supplier, pur-chased Brunot Island in order to build amanufactured gas plant there. In 1899,Andrew Carnegie addressed the Chamberof Commerce and urged the use of manu-factured gas as a solution to Pittsburgh’s



smoke problem. (In 1891, though, he hadrejected the use of manufactured gas ratherthan bituminous coal in his Pittsburghmills.) Most of these plans were not imple-mented, however, largely because of costs.The Philadelphia Company built a coal-fired electrical power-house on BrunotIsland in 1908 rather than a manufacturedgas plant.

“Andrew Carnegie...urged the use of

manufactured gas as asolution to Pittsburgh's

smoke problem.”

In 1900, the Philadelphia Company,which already owned several natural gasproducers, took over control of the firmsthat produced manufactured gas andcombined them in the Consolidated GasCompany of Pittsburgh. It constructed anew plant on the site that the PittsburghGas Company had occupied since 1872on the banks of the Monongahela River.The new plant produced both coal gasand water gas. The site later became thelocation of some of the facilities of theJones & Laughlin Steel Company. ThePhiladelphia Company also controlledthe Equitable Gas Company that soldcombined natural gas and manufacturedgas. In the late 1920s, the firm built anexperimental combined water gas andproducer gas plant at Elrama, 4 milesfrom Clairton, with a total capacity of 45million cubic feet (cf ) per day (20 millioncf of water gas and 25 million cf of pro-ducer gas) to along with the 35 million cfcapacity of its Pittsburgh plant. TheElrama plant was intended primary tohandle extraordinary peak demandswhen natural gas supplies were low.

The heritage of Pittsburgh manufacturedgas industry, however, involves more thanits history. The various by-products of

manufactured gas plants, if not capturedand disposed in a safe manner or sold,could become environmental liabilities,damaging surface and groundwater qual-ity, poisoning soils with toxic nuisances,and producing odors and smoke. As earlyas 1869 the Pittsburgh city councilspassed a statute restricting the disposal ofcoal tar wastes in streams. Further ordi-nances prohibited the disposal of “anygas, tar, or any refuse matter” fromgashouses in public waters or sewers or onthe streets. Gases creating odors or thatwere “prejudicial to life or health” werealso banned.

“...by-products ofmanufactured gas

plants...could becomeenvironmentalliabilities...”

The gas house wastes that had the mostpersistent characteristics and posed themost danger to the environment were tars(DNAPL’s or dense non-aqueous phaseliquids), a persistent group of pollutantsthat contaminated soil and groundwater.Gas house wastes were occasionally delib-erately discharged onto the soil or used aslandfill, as well as frequently leaking fromstorage facilities.

“The best known case inPittsburgh in regard topollution from gas housewastes involves what isnow the PittsburghTechnology Center...”

The best known case in Pittsburgh inregard to pollution from gas house wastesinvolves what is now the PittsburghTechnology Center on Second Avenue.

The site was purchased in 1983 fromLTV Steel (originally Jones&Laughlin)for redevelopment as a brownfield site.When purchased, no one bothered toinvestigate the tenants previous to J&L.One of these tenants was theConsolidated Gas Company, which hadsold its land to J&L in 1921. The site hadbeen covered with fresh fill to a depth ofseveral feet but pre-construction testingfound traces of ferrous cyanide on thesite, later identified as coming from a tarstorage tank. This discovery resulted indelaying construction for more than twoyears, and Carnegie Mellon relocating itsResearch Institute to a site fifty feetdownstream from the property line of theold gas plant.

“...past practices havefrequently left a pollutionburden for the presentand for the future.”

Thus, while the manufactured gas indus-try played an important role supplyingcleaner energy for light and other uses inPittsburgh and other American cities, itstill left in hundreds of cities a heritage ofpersistent soil and groundwater contami-nation. This environmental damage haslimited and delayed development onmany sites, created possible health haz-ards, and costing many millions of dollarsfor remediation. It provides a strikingexample of how past practices have fre-quently left a pollution burden for thepresent and for the future. Hopefully, thenew coal gasification technologies willnot do the same. �

Joel Tarr is the Richard S. CaliguriProfessor of History and Policy at CarnegieMellon University. He is widely recognizedas an expert on the environmental andindustrial heritage of Pittsburgh.

1907:Rachel Carsonborn.

1907:The Smoke Prevention Association of America has itsfirst meeting. This group would eventually become theAir & Waste Management Association.

1914:A Pittsburgh anti-smoke ordinancewas adopted.



NEXT ISSUE

FOCUS

DELIVERING

CLOSING DATE

FOLLOWING ISSUE

FOCUS

DELIVERING

CLOSING DATE

Spring 2007

Engineering Education

March 2, 2007

February 9, 2007

Summer 2007

International Bridge Conference

May 11, 2007

April 20, 2007

Pittsburgh

ENGINEER POSITION 1X /PER 2X/ PER 3+ X / PER

COVERS back $2900.00 $2675.00 $2425.00

inside back $2750.00 $2475.00 $2350.00

inside front $2750.00 $2475.00 $2350.00

center pagespread $4200.00 $3780.00 $3570.00

1 full page $2500.00 $2250.00 $2125.00

1/2 page $1250.00 $1125.00 $975.00

1/4 page $750.00 $675.00 $650.00

1/8 page $450.00 $375.00 $325.00

You will be invoiced for your ad after publication. Prime advertisingpositions are offered on a first-come, first-serve basis.

For additional advertising information contact: Doug Smith, Pittsburgh Engineer Ad Sales Tele: 613-536-5540 e-mail: [email protected] To download a Pittsburgh Engineer advertising contractand printer specifications from the ESWP website, vist www.eswp.com/PDF/PE_ad_rates.pdf

ADVERTISING RATE SCHEDULE

1926:Typhoid epidemic over, with 2.6 deathsper 100,000, down from a high of wellover 100 per 100,000.

1928:The first commercial steel induction furnacein the US was installed in Pittsburgh by theHeppenstall Forge and Knife Company.

1919:World War I brought anotherboom to the steel industry.

In 1921, the original 196 megawatt Seward Power Plant wasbuilt at the mouth of the Conemaugh No. 1 mine, 60miles east of Pittsburgh, near Johnstown. It was the firstmine-mouth, coal-fired facility in the United States.

During its first 50 years of service, Pennsylvania coal productionand electricity production at the original Seward plant were at itspeak. After 82 years of service the coal-fired plant was retired anda new facility was built. The new plant produces two and one-half times as much electricity as the one it replaced, while signifi-cantly lowering emission rates.

Today, the legacy of King Coal lives on in the form of enormousmountains of unused low-grade coal. These waste coal piles –

called “boney” or “gob” by Western Pennsylvanian natives –are a major source of acid runoff into rivers, streams and theground water table.

On October 31, 2004, the $800 million Reliant Energy Sewardproject began to eliminate these boney piles by using them asfuel. Reliant Energy, owner and operator of the plant, estimatesthat there are 100 million tons of waste coal within 50 miles ofthe plant site in Indiana County’s East Wheatfield Townshipand another 250 million tons across the state. This is more thanenough to keep the new 521 megawatt plant supplied fordecades to come. (Figure 1.)



Innovations in Clean Coal Technologyat the Reliant Seward Station

by Thomas C. RobertsReliant Energy

Figure 1. The Seward Station is the largest waste coal power station in the world and one of the world’slargest circulating fluidized bed facilities. (Reliant Energy)

1936:Many of the larger cities of the United States based their smokeregulations or ordinances on Pittsburgh and requests for informa-tion were received from England, France, Australia and Japan.

1936:1930 census said 34 percent of population wasengaged in manufacturing and mechanicalindustries.

Seward is now the largest waste coal power station in the world.It was the first coal-fired power plant built in Pennsylvania in 20years and is one of the largest circulating fluidized bed (CFB)facilities in the world. Benefits of the new Seward Power Plantinclude the production of low-cost electricity; disposal of mil-lions of tons of former mine waste, (Figure 2.); significantreductions in air and water emissions; and removal of a majorsources of acid mine discharge into the Kiskiminetas-Conemaugh watershed – all at no cost to the Commonwealth.(Figure 3).

How It Works

The new Seward Plant was built on the site of the old plant.Prior to construction on the old site, Reliant remediated twomillion tons of waste coal on the property by mixing the acidicwaste coal with nearly 2.2 million tons of alkaline ash fromother plants nearby to neutralize it. But that was not all. Theelevation of the new site was raised to avoid the 100 year floodplain, and then covered with topsoil and vegetation. After thiswas completed, Reliant built the new facility on the propertymaking it one of the largest waste coal site remediation projectsever completed.

The Seward Plant is made up of two 50 percent capacity AlstomCFB combustors supplying a single turbine generator and is theonly merchant electric generator of its kind. The steam at theplant is at 2600 psig and 1005F producing a main steam flowof 1.9 million lb/hr and a reheat flow of 1.7 million lb/hr result-ing in 521 net MW. The designed heat rate is about 9700Btu/kWh with an overall process efficiency of 86.25 percent.The boney fuel and limestone material from the material han-dling system feed the combustors. The use of limestone as a sor-bent for S02 capture and the minimization of thermal N0x for-mation require the CFB combustion temperatures to be main-tained between 1570 and 1590F. This is much lower than the3000F temperature requirements of typical pulverized coal boil-er technologies. About 70 percent of S02 formed during thecombustion of sulfur in the process is captured in the combus-tor from the limestone addition. (Figure 4)



Figure 2. Unsightly mountains of low-grade coal and rocks, some as tall as 300 feet and thousands of feet long, are the fuel source forSeward Station. Boney piles are a major source of acid runoff into rivers and streams. (Reliant Energy)

Figure 3. Typical acid runoff impacts to a stream.Seward Station’s use of this fuel will improve water chemistry in theKiskiminetas-Conemaugh watershed. (Reliant Energy)

1938:Despite attempts to close them down,there are still about 900 privies(outhouses) within the City limits.

1941:December 7th and Pearl Harbor. Pollution control would have to wait while allmills went to the war effort. Mayor Cornelius D. Scully and others travel to St.Louis to learn of their progress in Air Pollution and repeat it in Pittsburgh.

“Seward is now the largest wastecoal power station in the world.

It was the first coal-fired power plantbuilt in Pennsylvania in 20 years and

is one of the largest circulating fluidizedbed (CFB) facilities in the world.”

An assortment of other pollution control technologies has beenincorporated to ensure that Seward meets Pennsylvania’s strictair emission limits. (Table 1.) The pollution controls include aselective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system further reduc-ing Nox emissions and a pulse-jet fabric filter or baghouse forparticulate matter (PM) collection. Another control is one ofthe first U.S. applications of Alstom’s patented fly ash dryabsorber (FDA) system to polish S02 from the flue gas, whileconserving the amount of limestone required to achieve at least95% sulfur removal from the waste fuel combustion. A fractionof the fly ash collected in the baghouse is fed forward to theFDA. The FDA then re-humidifies the ash which in turn re-activates the calcined limestone. It is then re-injected into theflue gas stream and polishes out S02 and other acid gases.

Seward’s fuel averages 51 percent ash. Typically, Seward willconsume nearly 3.5 million tons of waste fuel and about

750,000 tons of limestone annually. This produces about 2.5million tons of valuable ash. This byproduct is certified byPennsylvania for beneficial use for soil remediation and mine



Figure 4. Seward Station uses two 50%-sized Alstom PowerCirculating Fluidized Beds to produce steam at 2,400 psig.Emissions are controlled by using limestone as a sorbent in the bed,maintaining the bed temperatures at around 1,570F to reduce thermal N0x, and an assortment of back-end technologies such asselective non-catalytic reduction and fly ash dry absorber.(Reliant Energy)

Old Pulverized Coal-Fired Plant New Circulating Fluidized Bed Plant

N0x 0.57 lb/mmBtu 0.15 lb/mmBtu

S02 4.00 lb/mmBtu 0.60 lb/mmBtu

PM 0.10 lb/mmBtu 0.01 lb/mmBtu

0.15 lb/mmBtu at 70 to 100% loadC0

0.20 lb/mmBtu at 40 to 70% load

V0Cs 0.005 lb/mmBtu

NH3 10 ppm

Notes: N0X = nitrogen oxides, S02 = sulfur dioxide, PM = particulate matter, C0 = carbon monoxide,V0C = volotile organic compounds, NH3 = ammonia

Table 1. Comparison of Emissions from New CFB Plant vs. Original Plant

1945:David L. Lawrence was elected mayor of Pittsburgh and pledged to clear the air. Along with Richard K. Mellon, who headedthe Allegheny Conference on Community Development, he was to lead Pittsburgh into effective smoke control, flood control,slum clearance, and a rebuilding which became known as Pittsburgh's Renaissance.

reclamation. The Seward product is transported to variousabandoned mine sites and acid discharges where remediationoccurs similar to the Seward remediation.

“The new Seward Plant includesa state-of-the-art 20 cell mechanicalforced draft cooling tower that

reduces thermal discharge by about5 million BTU/hr, virtually

eliminating thermal discharge.”

Water resources were considered and conserved when the newSeward Plant was designed. The original facility had been a“once through” cooling water system. Water was pumped direct-ly from the Conemaugh River, used as cooling water and thenwas discharged directly back into the river. The new SewardPlant includes a state-of-the-art 20 cell mechanical forced draftcooling tower that reduces thermal discharge by about 5 millionBTU/hr, virtually eliminating thermal discharge. Within theplant boundaries, all waste, storm and various water streams arecollected in a new central reservoir and used in the ash processthereby eliminating waste water treatment and discharge into theConemaugh River.

The retirement of the old plant presented Reliant with both achallenge and an opportunity. Upon the final retirement,Reliant identified the existing environmental issues such as

asbestos and lead-based paint, and the value in the structuralsteel, copper, and various specialty metals. Reliant developed aunique and innovative program in which the value of the sal-vageable metals and old equipment would offset the remedia-tion cost of the identified environmental hazards – withoutfunds changing hands. (Figure 5.) This no-cost contract toaddress environmental and safety issues of demolishing an oldbuilding while recycling the metal resources is a new model withenormous potential benefits to other brownfield locations inPennsylvania and the U.S.

“Reliant developed a unique andinnovative program in which the valueof the salvageable metals and old

equipment would offset theremediation cost of the identified

environmental hazards...”

Reliant Energy believes that taking a holistic approach to busi-ness, the environment, safety and the community is the key to asuccessful company. The company is convinced that competitivemarkets provide the most innovative and efficient energy solu-tions. Seward is the proof. �

Thomas C. Roberts is the Technical Manager of the ReliantEnergy’s Seward Station Power Plant.



Figure 5. The old Seward Stationis seen behind the new Station. Theenvironmental and safety issues wereaddressed and the resources salvagedin an innovative no-cost demolitioncontract. (Reliant Energy)

1947:Smoke control had to wait for the end of World War II for enforcement. In 1947 all one and two family dwellings weremade subject to the smoke control ordinances to end coal burning for home heating. Natural gas was piped to all neighborhoods and homes were required to switch over.



Environmental awareness became a growing political and social issue in the 1960s,prompting the passage of three milestone environmental laws. The Clean Air Act(CAA) was enacted in 1970, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonlyknown as the Clean Water Act) was amended in 1972 and 1977, and the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) were enacted in 1976. These federal requirementssignificantly affected industry in the United States.

STEEL INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESSby Douglas P. Boyea and William S. Kubiak

United States Steel Corporation

1948:In October, Donora, PA, a small town just 28 miles south of Pittsburgh, experienced a severe stagnation for severaldays. Emissions from its steel and wire mill, zinc plant, and sulfuric acid plant blackened the air. Before it was over43% of the population had become ill and 20 were dead.



Air

Typical manufacturing processes in an integrated steel millinclude coke production, iron production, steel production andladle metallurgy, where the chemistry of liquid steel is changed tomeet customer specifications. Liquid steel is cast into slabs whichare then rolled into coils, acid cleaned, cold-rolled to furtherimprove quality and then coated with tin, zinc or other materialsdepending on customer specifications. The coke productionprocess involves heating coal in coke oven batteries to drive offvolatile materials, leaving pure carbon (coke) for use as a fuel inthe blast furnaces. Particulate emission control devices, such asbaghouses and venturi scrubbers, collect and clean fugitive emis-sions generated during the removal of coke from the ovens at theend of each coking cycle. Volatile gasses that are driven from thecoal inside the ovens are collected, cleaned and used as a highquality byproduct fuel to provide heat for the coking process andother downstream processes. The gas cleaning process can alsoinclude a step where sulfur compounds are removed from the gasto reduce SO2 emissions when the coke oven gas is burned.Organic vapors in the gas processing areas are either contained inclosed-loop processes or collected and recycled.

“Process gasses, mainly carbonmonoxide, generated during theiron-making process are collected,

cleaned and used as a byproduct fuel.”

The finished coke is charged into the blast furnaces along withiron-bearing materials and fluxes to produce liquid iron. Processgasses, mainly carbon monoxide, generated during the iron-making process are collected, cleaned and used as a byproductfuel. Emissions generated when liquid iron and slag are removedfrom the furnace are collected and cleaned in a baghouse orinert gas shrouds are used to prevent the formation of iron oxidefumes. The liquid iron is then transported by rail car to theBOP Shop for further processing.

When the liquid iron arrives at the Basic Oxygen Process (BOP)Shop, it is chemically treated to reduce sulfur and the sulfurcontaining slag is skimmed off. The prepared liquid iron is thepoured into the BOP furnace, along with a measured quantityof steel scrap. All of these steps are controlled by baghouse par-

1952:Diesel engines replaced coal firing in locomotives and river-boats by 1952, resulting in an improvement in air quality.

1956:By 1956 it was estimated that 90% of the homes had changedto heating with natural gas. The days with streetlights on atnoon due to the dark, polluted skies were coming to an end.



Aviation and TransportationDesign-Build-Operate

Drinking WaterEnvironmental Management

Facilities and Geotechnical EngineeringInformation Management

WastewaterWater Resources

2740 Smallman Street, Suite 100, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania15222

tel: 412 201-5500 fax: 412 201-5522www.cdm.com

consulting • engineering • construction • operations

listen. think. deliver.SM

CDM®

Contact us at [email protected]

Remember…To keep our recordsup-to-date with your

current e-mail address.You will receive theMonthly e-mailnewsletter

“E-techniCALENDAR”.

ticulate emission controls. Large volumes of high purity oxygenare then blown into the furnace, burning the carbon in the liq-uid iron and scrap, providing the heat required to sustain thechemical reactions required to convert the iron and scrap intoliquid steel. Gasses and fumes generated within the BOP fur-nace are collected and cleaned, using either venturi scrubber orelectrostatic precipitator particulate emission controls prior tobeing exhausted to the atmosphere.

The liquid steel is then chemically adjusted to proper metallur-gical specifications at the Ladle Metallurgy Facility (LMF).Where the particulate air emissions are generally controlledusing baghouses. The liquid steel is then cast into slabs at thecontinuous slab caster. Once the steel is solidified, the down-stream process are generally not emissive and do not requirededicated emission control equipment. One exception is the

continuous pickle process where the hot-rolled strip is drawnthrough a hydrochloric acid solution to remove oils and rollingscale. The acid solution tanks and rinse tanks are covered andacid fumes are collected and cleaned in a packed-bed wet scrub-ber prior to being discharged to the atmosphere.

Most steel mill emission sources were constructed prior to NewSource Review (1977) permitting regulations. Therefore, BACTor LAER emission controls, which are required for new sourcesare not common at integrated iron and steel mills. One excep-tion to this is the installation of galvanizing lines used to pro-duce high-quality galvanized product for the automotive indus-try. These facilities utilize gas-fired continuous annealing fur-naces to improve the ductility of the product and the morerecent installations have been fitted with Selective CatalyticReduction NOx controls.

1956:The BBC produced a movie “The City thatWouldn’t Die” about the Pittsburgh Renaissanceand pollution control.

1957:The Allegheny County Health Department began January 1st, tookover the duties of the City Smoke Control Bureau, and assumedresponsibility for air pollution control throughout the County.



Water

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a com-prehensive law setting rules for waste-water dischargers and establishing basicparameters and regulations governingmunicipal and industrial discharges toany navigable surface water body in theUnited States. It covers point source dis-charges, stormwater discharges and non-point source discharges. A major part ofthe CWA is the National PollutionDischarge Elimination System (NPDES)permitting program.

“The typical NPDESpermit...sets strict limits

for the parametersassociated with the

process originating thedischarge.”

The NPDES program sets exact limits,sampling parameters, schedules and othercontrols on industrial effluents. The typi-cal NPDES permit identifies each dis-charge point, the process that contributeswater to that discharge point and sets strictlimits for the parameters associated withthe process originating the discharge.Many processes in an integrated steel facil-ity have specific Effluent Limit Guidelinesthat link the amount of a given pollutantthat can be discharged to the amount ofdaily production. Water Quality BasedEffluent Limitations may be based on thequality of the receiving water.

The first step in integrated steelmaking isthe production of coke from coal. Wateris used to carry the organic compoundsand trace metals from the process gas andthrough the by-product facility.Ammonia is stripped from the water infree and fixed ammonia stills, and thenthe water is treated biologically to remove

organics. Finally there is pH adjustmentand filtration to remove the metals.

The water used in the blast furnaces andsteelmaking shops is largely coolingwater, which is used to protect the equip-ment and to quench the hot off-gasses toreduce the volume of exhaust gas that will

be treated further. Other water is used forscrubbing the air contaminants from theexhaust gas, and this scrubber water mustbe treated in clarifiers to remove solidsand metallic constituents.

Cooling water is also used in the castingand hot rolling processes. Water is used to

1959:Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) beginswastewater treatment operations.

1962:Rachel Carson publishes Silent Spring.



flush scale and oils from the steel andtreatment of this water is required forremoval of mill scale solids, oil andgrease. Settling devices, scale pits, clari-fiers, and filters are the common watertreatment devices.

Cold rolling, pickling, and coatingsprocesses require water treatment formill scale, ph control, oil removal, met-als precipitation, and solids separationand filtering.

Environmental Progress andImprovement

United States Steel Corporation and thesteel industry in general have maderemarkable strides in the improvement ofthe environment since the late 1960s. Asignificant part of this is attributable tomore efficient energy use and to plantmodernization. Between the late 1950sand the early 1990s, domestic producersphased out open-hearth furnaces,increased the usage of continuous castingand generally enhanced technologies toreduce energy consumption. In additionto the improvements achieved throughplant modernization, air and water dis-charges have, according to industry

sources, been reduced by 90 percent overthe past 40 years. Since the implementa-tion of the NPDES program, the reduc-tion in the discharge of total suspendedsolids at a single plant can be measured intons per day. Over the last 15 years, ben-zene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-bon (PAH) air emissions decreased morethan 75 percent. Nitrogen Oxide emis-sions have been reduced more than 35percent and sulfur dioxide emissionsmore than 70 percent.

“United States SteelCorporation and the steelindustry...have made

remarkable strides in theimprovement of the

environmentsince the late 1960s.”

According to the US EPA, air pollutionin general has been reduced by 42 percentsince 1970, while energy consumption inthe United States increased by 42 percentover the same period. The domestic steelindustry, however, decreased the amountof energy required to produce a ton ofsteel by 45 percent.

These reductions in energy consump-tion and in the discharge of air andwater pollutants have come at a price.Pollution control systems amount toapproximately 15 percent of total capitaloutlays for the steel industry in the U.S.Environmental costs per ton of steelrange from $10 to $20.

“...air and water dis-charges have...been

reduced by90 percent over

the past 40 years.”

The steel industry has also taken the lead inmercury-reduction programs, pressuringother industries to eliminate the use ofmercury in products that may later be recy-cled for steel content. This allows for clean-er recycling of scrap steel. Automobilerecycling is a major source of scrap metalfor steel making. Mercury switches arebeing phased out in the automotive indus-try in order to improve the recyclability ofcars as scrap.

Steel Industry Commitment

Environmental stewardship has becomeone of the core values for steel companies,as reflected in reduced emissions,increased recycling and efficient use ofenergy. �

Douglas P. Boyea ((412) 433-5914,[email protected]) is the Manager-Waterand William S. Kubiak ((412) 433-5915,[email protected]) is the Manager-Airfor the United States Steel Corporation, 600Grant Street, Room 2068, Pittsburgh, PA15219.

(Photos courtesy of United States Steel)

24

1970:First Earth Day in U.S. observed inPittsburgh on April 15th, one week beforethe first national Earth Day on April 22nd.

1970:U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA)established.

1973:First flue gas desulfurization scrubbers forutility boilers in US installed at DuquesneLight’s 400 MW Phillips Power Station.



What’sNewin NewSourceReview?by Harry F. Klodowski, Jr., Esquire

Law Offices of Harry Klodowski

Permitting construction of new sources of air pollution has been one of the mostcontroversial topics in environmental regulation for 30 years. After 15 years of discussion,USEPA proposed a series of New Source Review (“NSR”) reform interpretations andchanges in these air construction permit rules from 2002 through 2006. Each state is

required to adopt NSR provisions in state permit rules, and Pennsylvania is in a rulemakingprocedure in which it proposes not to follow many part of the federal NSR reforms.

The rules apply to any source of air pollution and construction of new plants and changes atexisting plants, called “modifications” in NSR rules. If the source is located in an area where thecurrent air quality meets federal standards for various pollutants, the rules are called Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit regulations. If the source is in an area where the outside airdoes not meet federal air standards, a “nonattainment area”, the “Nonattainment New SourceReview” (“NNSR”)rules apply, and impose additional control requirements such as emission offsets.

1975:Major efforts were undertaken by US Steel to controlits coal-fired boilers and numerous steelmakingfacilities in the Mon-Valley.

1985:LTV Steel successfully installs a new desulfurization unitat its Hazelwood coke plant, finally bringing sulfur dioxideconcentrations in the community within federal standards.

26


The NSR rules have worked fairly wellfor new plant construction, but theirapplication to maintenance, equipmentreplacement, modifications or improve-ments at existing plants has created amorass of uncertainty and delay. Therules are not clear, and a couple of pagesin the statute became a handful of pagesin the regulations and thousands of pagesof EPA interpretive letters. The interpre-tations by EPA and state agencies are notalways consistent between agencies andsome have changed over time. Agencieshave changed positions 5 or 10 years aftera project is completed. The major thrustof NSR reform is to define the rules, andreduce ad hoc decisions by permit appli-cants and permit writers, leading to fasterdecisions on permits.

Federal NSR Reform

EPA proposed 3 NSR reform packagesfrom 2002 through 2006. In December2002, EPA proposed “NSRImprovement” changes to the NSR andPSD rules, which were promptly chal-lenged in court by the Democratic gover-nors of northeastern states (includingPennsylvania), and inaccurately slammedin the press as a gutting of the Clean AirAct. The opinion in New York v. EPA,413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir 2005) generallyupheld EPA’s rulemaking. The Courtapproved use of an “actual to future actu-al” calculus for estimating the increase inemissions from a modification, using a 10year period to demonstrate existingcapacity, and allowing for “demandgrowth exclusion” to account for unusedcapacity that existed prior to the project.The Court rejected EPA’s approach on aspecial calculation of impact for “cleanunits” and an exemption from NSRreview for Pollution Control Projects.Most of this rule is now effective at thefederal level. Ohio and West Virginiaadopted state rules following this federal

rule in 2004 and 2005. BecausePennsylvania adopts the federal PSDrules by reference, the 2002 federal rulesare now effective in Pennsylvania for PSDpollutants (using a 10 year look back toshow existing capacity), but existing staterules apply to nonattainment NSR (5year look back), and both must be ana-lyzed for a Pennsylvania permit.

“The NSR rules...are not clear.”

The second federal rule package attempt-ed to define the Equipment ReplacementProvision of “Routine Maintenance andRepair,” (“RMR”) an exemption to theNSR permitting process. EPA has definedRMR on a case by case basis, and uses arepair cost formula (that the IRS hadabandoned in the early 1980’s) to deter-mine if a project is an exempt repair. TheOctober 23, 2003 RMR rule used highercost thresholds (20% compared to 2 to18% under older practice) to define a reg-ulated project. The northeastern stateswere successful in their legal challenge tothis rule, and in NY v. EPA, 3/17/06, thecourt vacated the 2003 rule. The RMRexemption is still in the regulations andremains a major source of uncertainty.

“Pennsylvania Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection (DEP)...rejected most

elements of federalNSR reform.”

In September 2006, EPA proposed a ruleon: 1) Debottlenecking (an increase inemissions from an air pollution source as aresult of a project at a different source) 2)Aggregation (when to count multiplesmall projects as one project) and

3) Project Netting (should emissionsincreases and decreases be counted at theproject level, or at the entire source level).A public comment period and public hear-ing were scheduled for the fall of 2006. Itseems safe to assume the northeasternstates will challenge this rule as well.

Pennsylvania NSR Reform

Pennsylvania’s nonattainment NSR ruleswere last revised in 1994, and differ fromfederal rules and those of most otherstates. The key differences are use of a“Potential to Potential” test for estimat-ing project emissions, use of a 2 yearbaseline for past emissions (could be any2 years in most recent 5 years), annual,daily and hourly triggers for NSR, count-ing projects too small to be covered byfederal rules, and a 1 year filing deadlinefor closed plants to file reactivation plansor emission credit applications.

The Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) pub-lished its own proposed NSR rule inApril 2006 for public comment. Thisproposal rejected most elements of fed-eral NSR reform and tried to preservethe existing Pennsylvania rule, and,unfortunately, existing confusing lan-guage. DEP received 33 commentsfrom entities including the SouthwestPA Growth Alliance, the IndependentRegulatory Review Commission,USEPA, industry and citizens groups.The major concerns were:

1. The language is unclear, confusing andcontradictory.

2. DEP should follow the federal rules tothe extent possible and had notexplained why it needs a special rule forPennsylvania.

3. DEP should use the 10 year baselineperiod. The proposed rule makes acomplex system even more complex

1989:Three Rivers Rowing Assn, opens as first site on new Washington’s Landing brownfielddevelopment, formerly Herr’s Island. (Photo: courtesy URA)


Herr’s Island

and expensive by requiring analysis of multiple pollutantsfrom past operations for two years for fine particulates, fiveyears for nonattainment New Source Review, ten years forPrevention of Significant Deterioration, and fifteen years fordeminimus aggregation, all of which can apply to the samepermit.

4. DEP should eliminate “de minimus aggregation” or countingfederally exempt small projects. Federal law, and the law ineach state surrounding Pennsylvania, is that “de minimis”emissions increases are not regulated until a major modifica-tion, (a single project resulting in emissions increases abovePSD significance levels) occurs.

5. The 1 year deadline for maintenance plans and ERC applica-tions should be extended.

6.The proposal will result in a competitive disadvantage becauseit is far more complicated and expensive compared to Ohioand West Virginia permit rules.

DEP has released a preliminary summary of comments and dis-cussion points for additional revisions before the final rule ispublished, perhaps in early 2007. DEP intends to move andrewrite definitions, improve clarity, consider allowing a 10 yearlook back upon demonstration of cause, delete the fine particu-late provisions, delete hourly and daily thresholds, and mayextend the 1 year ERC deadline for particulates and SOx.

“Efforts to simplify the NSR constructionpermit rules have reached the opposite

result in the short term.”

Conclusion

Efforts to simplify the NSR construction permit rules havereached the opposite result in the short term. Pennsylvania’sopposition to adopting any form of permit reform has created amess where both federal and old Pennsylvania rules apply to anypermit. Pennsylvania should adopt the federal rules to theextent possible to maintain its ability to attract new plants andplant expansions. We can hope that when the dust settles in afew years, the rules will be clarified. For now, facilities contem-plating improvements should allow ample time to get air per-mits for their projects.

Harry F. Klodowski Jr., Esquire

Law Offices of Harry Klodowski

6400 Brooktree Court,Suite 250

Wexford, Pa. 15090

724-940-4000

Harry Klodowski has practiced environmental law in and aroundPittsburgh since 1979. He is a Director of the Air & WasteManagement Assn., past Chair of the Allegheny Co. Bar Assn.Environmental Law Section, and past Chair of the Southwest Pa.Air Quality Partnership, Inc.

The author acknowledges the support of the Southwest PA GrowthAlliance and Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce inPennsylvania NSR issues. �



Special Welcome To

Our New Sponsors:

Bayer,

Wayne Crouse,

Eaton/Cutler Hammer,

Franklin Interiors

1995:First Industrial Site RecyclingConference (Brownfields Conference)sponsored by ESWP.

1998:USS Clairton Coke Works becomesfirst in the coke industry to achieveISO 14001 environmental standards.

1998:3 Rivers Wet Weather DemonstrationProject began addressing combinedsewer overflows.

CORPORATE MEMBERS

Gold Members

Silver Members

Bronze Members

Aker Kvaerner Songer, Inc.

Orbital Engineering, Inc.

DeSalvo Enterprizes, Inc. Reed Smith LLP CDM

Aker Kvaerner

GAI Consultants, Inc.

Veolia Water North America

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control

Marsh USA Inc.

U.S. Steel Corporation

Michael Baker Corporation

Association for Ironand Steel Technology

Converteam

Alcoa, Inc.Burt Hill Kosar Rittlemann

Carnegie-Mellon University

Buchanan Ingersoll

ATS-CHESTEREngineers, Inc.

Avalotis Corporation

E.V. Bishoff Co.

Wilber Smith AssociatesFigg

ATSI, Inc.

Astorino

H.F. Lenz Company

Uhde Corporation

Point Park University

HATCH

CORPORATE MEMBERS

Silver Members

Bronze Members

Management ScienceAssociates

Chapman Corporation

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.

Kroff ChemicalCompany, Inc.

Robert Kimball& Associates

JNE Consulting (US) Inc.

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Gannett Fleming, Inc.

The Gateway Engineers

Duane Morris

Dick Corporation

DQE Energy Services

DMJM Harris

Danieli Corporation

Core Technologies

Continental Design andManagement Group

Mascaro Construction

Romualdi, Davidson& Associates, Inc.

River ConsultingIncorporated

R.T. PattersonCompany

National City Bank

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

DMJM Harris

S/D Engineers, Inc.

WyattIncorporated

Wheeling-PittsburghSteel

WADE-TRIM

URS Corp.

Turner ConstructionCompany

SNC-Lavalin

SMS DeMag

Schnader HarrisonSegal & Lewis LLP

University of PittsburghSchool of Engineering

Maguire Group, Inc.

Mellon FinancialCorporation

Mechanical OperationsCo., Inc.

PBS&J

Paul C. Rizzo Associates

SAI ConsultingEngineers, Inc.

Tele-TrackingTechnologies, Inc.

Hatch Mott MacDonald

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

ms consultants, inc.

What’s the best way to recruit more women into thecompetitive engineering field? Ask those whoalready have a seat at the table, and they offer a com-

bination of strategies to pique interest.

A panel of engineering experts discussed ways to address theshortage of women in the field and ways to attract youngerfemales to engineering during a recent lunch at the Engineers’Society of Western Pennsylvania (ESWP).

Panel member Ruthann Omer grew up in an engineering envi-ronment because her father ran The Gateway Engineers, whereshe is now president and board member.

“It hasn’t been easy to find qualified women,’’ Omer said. Shetalked about times when male colleagues expected her to leavethe business and raise a family, and meetings where other pro-fessionals assumed she was a secretary because she was a female.

But Omer is succeeding at the Green Tree-based civil engineer-ing firm she says her brother simply did not want to run. Abouta quarter of her firm’s 104 employees are female. “We have toget more women interested in engineering because it is engi-neers who make just about everything we use today,’’ she said.

“It’s an issue every country is wrestling with,’’ said Pradeep K.Khosla, dean of the College of Engineering at Carnegie MellonUniversity who led the panel discussion.

Women comprise only about 9 percent of all engineers in theUnited States, according to American Society for EngineeringEducation in Washington, D.C.

At Carnegie Mellon, 25 percent of the undergraduate engineer-ing students are female, while women account for about 22 per-cent of graduate engineering students, according to Khosla.

30


2000:Allegheny County achieves attainmentof all 1977 and 1990 national ambientair quality standards.

Gateway Engineers President Ruthann Omer meets with students following the panel discussion.

Engineering The Future/ESWP Panelby Chriss Swaney

2002:David L. Lawrence Convention Centeropens as first certified LEEDSgreen Convention Center.(Photo Courtesy: Visit Pittsburgh)


Pittsburgh’s new Convention Center

31

A key step in raising those percentages, the panelists agreed, isto expose more middle school students to what engineers do.

“Kids need to know engineering isn’t boring; it’s fun stuff,’’said Panel Member Jane Rudolph, vice president of businessdevelopment for Lockheed Martin Transportation andSecurity Solutions in Rockville, Md. Rudolph, an Irwinnative, earned her bachelor’s degree in electrical and comput-er engineering and engineering and public policy fromCarnegie Mellon in 1979.

“We probably don’t celebrate the contributions of engineeringenough,’’ said Rudolph, whose career has included work onmilitary systems for national defense as well as projects for theU.S. Census Bureau.

Joann Truchan, an air quality engineer with the AlleghenyCounty Health Department and president of the PittsburghChapter of the Society of Women Engineers, said more girlswill consider engineering if they grow up believing that “mathand science are not just for geeks.’’

When people ask Truchan, who holds a bachelor’s degree inengineering and a master’s in public policy from CarnegieMellon, about her primary goal for the Society of WomenEngineers, she sums it up like this: “To become obsolete.’’

But Beth A. Wolfe, coordinator of engineering outreach atMarshall University in Huntington, WVa., said the nation


Panelist Nadine Aubry listens to a question posed by anaudience member.

Moderator Pradeep Khosla addresses the audience at theNovember 8 “Women in Engineering” panel.

needs more outreach programs to entice females into scienceand engineering programs.

Wolfe was one of more than 40 attendees at the Nov. 8“Women In Engineering” panel co-sponsored by CarnegieMellon’s College of Engineering and ESWP.

“Women, if they are good in math and science are pushedinto medicine because it’s a people field,’’ said Sonya Narla, a16-year-old senior from Winchester Thurston. Narla anddozen other high school students were looking for specificinformation about how to apply their math and science skillsto engineering.

Panel Member Nadine Aubry, newly appointed head ofCarnegie Mellon’s College of Engineering, told the high schoolstudents to push the envelope and accept challenge, and tolearn from those challenges.

“We simply need to communicate in a more dynamic way thatwomen can be engineers; they can do it,’’ said Aubry, who wasalso joined on the panel by Kirk H. Schulz, dean of the BagleyCollege of Engineering at Mississippi State University.

Schulz said that it is imperative that families learn to managetime if both spouses are working engineers. “We try to keepour family very structured so we map out the year’s mostimportant activities,’’ he said. “It is challenging, but it is notimpossible.’’ �

2005:CITGO Bassmaster Classic fishing tournamentheld on Pittsburgh’s rivers.

2008:Proposed opening of Three Rivers Park,13 miles of waterfront green space.(Photo courtesy: Visit Pittsburgh)

Pittsburgh EENNGGIINNEEEERR Winter 2006


INDEX OF ADVERTISERS

Michael Baker Corp Inside front cover

AWMA Inside back cover

ABC Imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Carnegie Mellon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Duquesne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Fenner & Esler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

GAI Consultants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

HDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Kimball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Mascaro Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Point Park University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

QB Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

S/D Engineers Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

SNC-Lavalin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Locations Nationwide1.800.230.0242

www.abcimaging.com

Baltimore • Boston • Chicago • Dallas • Los Angeles • MIamiNew York • Pittsburgh • San Francisco • Seattle • Washington, DC

The one-stop shop for all your printing and outsourcing needs.

reprographics

facilitiesmanagement

onlineplanroom

Myths and Misunderstandings:The acid from the mines was thought to be sufficient to protect the waters from Typhoid and Cholera.

The sulfur in the air was thought to be cleansing for those with lung cancer.Cancer victims came to Pittsburgh to “clean their lungs”.

A&WMA’S 100th

ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITIONJune 26-29, 2007 • Exhibition: June 26-28 • David L. Lawrence Convention Center • Pittsburgh, PA

The city of Pittsburgh’s three rivers converge at a site known as “The Point.” In 2007, Pittsburgh

is where the premier environmental education, networking, and solutions event comes together,

as the Air & Waste Management Association’s 100th Annual Conference & Exhibition

returns to the city that has served as its home for decades.

For more information, visit www.awma.org/ACE2007.

GetTo the Point in 2007!

ENERGIZING ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

01-0000 ACE ad full page.qxd 12/1/06 2:26 PM Page 1


2007 ESWP President’s ReceptionFriday, January 12, 20075:30 - 8:00 PM

Join us as we welcome the 2007 President, Alex G. Sciulli, PE, and honor theEngineers’ Society Officers and Directors.

Alex Sciulli is currently a Senior Vice President with Mellon Financial Corporation andserves as the Director of Corporate Operations and Real Estate and is a member ofMellon’s Senior Management Committee. He has 30 years experience in theengineering and construction industries. Prior to his affiliation with Mellon, Alex was aSenior Vice President with CDM, one of the largest civil and environmental consultingfirms in the U.S. During his tenure at CDM, he was responsible for managing nineregional offices in the mid-Atlantic states with a gross revenue of $52M.

Please contact the ESWP offices to make reservations for this annual event.Fee is $20.00 per person. Guests are welcome!

PEOPLE - SOCIETY - FIRM NEWS

PITTSBURGH, PA (December 6, 2006) Seth L. Pearlman, PE, president of DGI-Menard, aspecialized ground improvement contractor, has been named president of the DeepFoundations Institute (DFI) Board of Trustees. DFI is an association of firms andindividuals in the deep foundations and related industry, covering deep foundationconstruction and earth retention systems. Pearlman was installed as president at the organiza-tion’s 31st Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.

“I have spent my career focused on designing and developing new solutions for geotech-nical applications,” says Pearlman. “I am honored and enthusiastic about my role aspresident of DFI, which is an organization that leads the deep foundations industry ineducating people about new ideas, techniques and processes.”

Pearlman has almost 30 years of experience in the geotechnical industry. He earned a BSand an MS in Civil Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and is aregistered professional engineer in Pennsylvania and Virginia. He is a member of the

Geo-Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Concrete Institute (ACI), American Society ofHighway Engineers (ASHE), Design Build Institute of America (DBIA), Engineers Society of Western Pennsylvania(ESWP), National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), Tau Beta Pi Engineering Society and The Moles. He serves onan Advisory Council to the Carnegie Mellon University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

About DGI-Menard

DGI-Menard is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA. The company offers a full range of ground improvement technologies.DGI-Menard is a part of the Freyssinet Group, which also includes the Reinforced Earth Company, the inventor andmarket leader of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth retaining wall industry and Freyssinet LLC, a specialist inprestressing, cable stayed structures and concrete repairs. Freyssinet, the world’s leader in specialized civil engineering isa division of VINCI the world’s leading construction group.

Seth L. Pearlman Installed as President of the Deep Foundations Institute Board of Trustees

PITTSBURGH, PA (October 17, 2006)Astorino welcomes four new employeesto its 195-member staff. The newestadditions include:

• J. Robert Ellis, AIA – Project Architect

• Michael Bosco – Specifications Writer

• Scott Lizotte – Mechanical Engineer

• Kristin Goral – Architectural Intern

Since joining Astorino’s K-12Education / Justice / Public Housingstudio as a Project Architect, J. RobertEllis has been working hands-on withclients from Mercer State CorrectionalInstitution, Pittsburgh Public Schoolsand the Housing Authority of the Cityof Pittsburgh. He brings more than 12years of experience in the design andproject management of education,banking, religion, industrial, retail,commercial and residential projects toAstorino. Mr. Ellis’ portfolio includesprojects throughout Louisiana and theGulf Region and features extensive ren-ovation and conversion work forDillard department stores throughoutthe nation.

A resident of Oakmont, Pa., ScottLizotte joins Astorino as a MechanicalEngineer and, since joining the firm,has dedicated his time to the UPMCChildren’s Hospital of PittsburghMedical Office Building project. Beforejoining Astorino, Mr. Lizotte was theLead Engineer for the Ohio ValleyHospital’s Willows Independent LivingCenter, Mitsubishi Electric PowerProducts’ Corporate Headquarters andthe University of Texas at Houston’sInstitute of Molecular Medicine.

A registered architect with over 32 yearsof experience, Michael Bosco joinsAstorino as a Specifications Writer inthe Quality Assurance/Quality Controlstudio. Mr. Bosco is currently workingon the VA Pittsburgh University DriveMental Health Building, part of the$190 million VA Pittsburgh AssetRealignment Program. His previousexperience includes both K-12 andHigher Education facilities as well asnumerous Healthcare projects with theUniversity of Pittsburgh MedicalCenter (UPMC).

Originally from Cape Cod, Mass.,Kristin Goral brings fresh and innova-tive ideas to her role as ArchitecturalIntern in the firm’s Design Studio. Sincejoining Astorino, she has been workingon Usher Youth Camp and preliminarydesigns for Walnut Capital’s “BakerySquare at Eastside” mixed-use develop-ment project, a renovation of the formerNabisco plant on Penn Avenue inPittsburgh’s Shadyside/East Liberty area.Mr. Goral’s portfolio includes work on asatellite office for Boeing, located inKansas, a new courthouse in Elyria,Ohio and a $60 million high school inLong Branch, New Jersey.

Founded in 1972, Astorino, with officesin Pittsburgh, Pa., West Palm Beach Fl.,and Naples, Fl., is a full-service compa-ny with a strong team-based approachproviding complete architectural, engi-neering, interior design and design-build services. With emphasis on quali-ty design, innovative solutions andstrong project management, thisPittsburgh-based firm is one of thefastest-growing architectural and engi-neering firms in the nation.


SAI is Growing into New Space!PITTSBURGH, PA (October 3, 2006) SAI Consulting Engineers, Inc. is growing and expanding and pleased to announce themove of their Pittsburgh headquarters to its new location at 1350 Penn Avenue, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA. SAI’s continued growthover the past several years has led to this much needed expansion of their local office space.

“This move to our new location signifies a significant period of growth and transformation for SAI and its local operations that inmany ways is representative of the transformation of the Pittsburgh Region. We look forward to our continued presence as notonly a local engineering design, inspection, and construction management firm, but as a partner in the continued growth and suc-cess of our region.” (Don Gennuso, CEO of SAI)

Established in 1953, and now with a staff of over 150 engineers, technicians, and support personnel, SAI Consulting Engineers,Inc. (SAI) is a Pittsburgh-based civil and structural consulting/engineering firm that specializes in the design, inspection, and con-struction management of transportation, industrial, institutional, and commercial projects. SAI’s offices are located in Pittsburghand Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Morgantown, West Virginia.

PEOPLE - SOCIETY - FIRM NEWS

Astorino Staff Grows in Number and Experience

Pre-SortedStandard

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

Pittsburgh, PAPermit No. 2249

Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania

337 Fourth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CONFERENCEJune 4–6, 2007Hilton Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

pittsburgh: an environmental transformationpittsburgh: an environmental transformation ......

Documents