Recently in EPA Category

In the email from a friend at EPA a bit ago:

This year 3 out of 4 national 2009 ENERGY STAR Congregations awards were won by Baptist churches. One denomination has never "swept" the annual awards, and the explanation seems to be that there was extraordinary technical support by two ENERGY STAR affiliated private contractors, Siemens and Energy Education, Inc. who are working with Baptist churches. Many diverse denominations have won past year awards, which are also online at the awards webpage.

And dare I say it, the three bible belt Baptist congregations. Heh. Good on Siemens too.

EPA's official press release is here. Congregational winners' stories are here.

I'll bet Jon Merritt's a happy guy today.

"We were just doing our part..."

For many Region 2 employees, the work day was just getting under way on September 11 when the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. Bonnie Bellow, regional communications director, was at a coffee cart on the corner of Reade Street and Broadway when the first plane hit.

Bellow recalls: "Somebody behind me on line yelled, ‘Oh my God, look at that plane!' We all turned. It was going so fast, we turned and it had gone behind the buildings. The plane itself was blocked by the Woolworth Building, so we couldn't actually see it, but within a few seconds we heard the explosion and the ground shook. It's a moment that will, I think, be forever stopped in time. It was a moment that felt like total silence."

At the link is a summary of EPA's response to the deadly attack on the World Trade Center, from the opening moments to final impressions. [EPA photo]

UPDATE: Much more about the Third Jihad at this video. If you're looking for a good reason to get away from a petro-based economy, it starts around the 27 minute mark.

UPDATE: The Eco-Sister has her own tribute to the fallen over at KIRO Radio.

So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.

***

And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame.

-- Obama Administration Green Jobs Advisor Van Jones

-- Former Obama Administration Green Jobs Advisor Van Jones

Oh c'mon, Iain - kind of a stretch isn't it?...

Meanwhile, the EPA has also decided that it can reward religious institutions with an Energy Star rating. Amendment I to the Constitution has been repeatedly intepreted by the Courts as the government being unable to favor one religion over another. If certain religions use less energy than others, and that seems likely to be the case with, for instance, 24-hour charismatic adorations or synagogues with Eternal lights, then I can't see how this doesn't cross the line of establishment as defined by the Courts.

I swapped emails with Jerry Lawson a couple months ago. He's the National Manager for EPA's ENERGY STAR Small Business & Congregations Network. Thought I'd drop him a note to see what he thinks of Iain Murray's concerns. 

UPDATE: Jerry wrote back - says Mr. Murray "misunderstands" the E/S performance rating and is going to work up a FAQ. Works for me. Will post it (or a link) when he's done with it.

UPDATE: Jerry wrote back again:

Hi Don,

We concluded an FAQ is not merited because you identified the only "findable" naysayer against worship facilities having free access to the ENERGY STAR energy performance tracking tool. My Google and Bing searches generated nothing but dozens of positive stories. More importantly, the positive responses are from the environmental stewards like your readers who are out there doing the energy efficiency work in their homes, businesses and houses of worship.

As you and your readers realize, the first amendment prohibits government from favoring or discriminating among religions - not from providing legitimate services that are in the public interest, such a mail delivery and public information on pollution prevention. ENERGY STAR Congregations will begin providing free webinars on how to use the energy tracking tool this month, as detailed in the attached flyer (howepa.pdf).

Thanks for your good efforts.

Jerry Lawson,

National Manager ENERGY STAR Small Business & Congregations Network

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mail Code 6202J

Washington, DC 20460

www.energystar.gov/smallbiz

www.energystar.gov/congregations

Iain Murry:

The venerable Consumer Reports reviewed shower heads in its latest issue. Now what would you expect they'd do if they found one that provides an excellent shower, with a really forceful spray? Recommend it to its readers? No, it reported it all right, but to the EPA.

Ugh. Have been a CR member for years. Time for a letter to corporate...

UPDATE: By the way, here's a link to the illegal shower head if you want to snap one up before they're gone.

InsideEPA.com:

The House-passed climate cap-and-trade bill would prohibit EPA from using the PSD program to regulate GHGs, but Jackson has said that if Congress fails to pass a bill then EPA will use its air act authority to issue CO2 rules—though Jackson and other administration officials say their preference is for congressional action.

MSNBC:

The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward time and time again by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly. That means it takes years for sites to reach the final cleanup stage, and as a result fewer are getting there.

Was involved in the Superfund program for a couple years. And yeh, I'd agree that the low hanging fruit is pretty much gone. Here's a quick graph that lays out the problem:

The first thing that has to happen is to figure out how contaminated the ground is, and where the chemicals might be going. Answers to these questions involve a lot of research, digging around, and soil sampling.

After a few years a couple of cleanup options usually emerge. These are sent to the EPA (or state environmental quality folks) for their OK. The public usually has a say in the decision too. There's also a legal determination at that point as to how much the polluter (or polluters, if several industries contaminated the same place) is going to pay, and how much money EPA and other agencies are going to need to oversee the cleanup. Budgets get submitted, plans get approved, and work finally begins.

Once the cleanup officially starts the toxics in the soil often drop off relatively quickly. In real terms this could mean a decade or more, but there is steady progress. But eventually less and less stuff comes up out of the ground.

It's sorta like a coffee spill on your carpet. Most of the liquid comes up right away, and pretty cheaply. Maybe just a couple paper towels. But there's still that stain and coffee odor to contend with. That may require renting a carpet steamer or hiring an expensive cleaning service. The closer you want it to "like new" the more you will have to pay to get it there.

How clean does it need to be? What would drive that decision? Usually the answer is related to how the carpet is used. Is it a rug that you were going to eventually toss out anyway? Or maybe it's smack in the middle of your dining room. Likewise, is the contaminated soil located in an industrial area? Or will a school or hospital or neighborhood be built on it? Maybe it's an industrial area, but the spill is adjacent to a city water supply.

Regardless of who's running the White House these sites are getting tough, no question. So I won't ping Mr. Obama for that. My biggest objections are twofold. First, it looks as though the current administration plans to come back (once again) to taxpayers instead of the polluters for the additional cleanup money. And second, aside for the excellent work being down with Brownfields redevelopment, I think too many green interests want sites perfectly clean regardless of the cost.

UPDATE: Got a nice note from Tim Wheeler after visiting his article about homebuilding in sensitive areas around Baltimore. He noted a concern about toxics coming from "capped" sites.

An option EPA has agreed to at some sites is called "monitored natural attenuation." In plain english, MNA means keeping tabs on the site while letting the bugs in the soil finish the cleanup. It's a pretty good option for petroleum and some solvent spills. But it only works in narrow circumstances, when the source of the original spill (the tank, the chunk of contaminated soil) is considered gone. Here's EPA's guidebook on it.

Sites gets capped when it's safe to do so and when the costs of further cleanup outweigh the public health/safety benefits. That's not to say MNA is free. The cost of monitoring a site can be in the millions of dollars a year for decades. Some will disagree, but my experience working with these regulators is that the "what is safe" decision is made with a lot of care and public dialog. And keep in mind that every government dollar spent on a cleanup is one pulled from other areas of public and environmental safety. Or pulled from your pocket.

The cost-benefit decision is also a temporary one in my view. Two reasons. Once the cost of not cleaning it up outweighs the cost of MNA, somebody will come up with the money. As property values rise in California and the D.C. area for instance, sites that were once considered too costly to clean up are getting fresh infusions of cash from developers willing to bear the expense up front to gain the financial rewards. And on the other end there are Fortune 500 engineering firms out there working on cheaper, more effective (i.e. profitable) ways to clean up sites.

Want to know more? Restoration advisory boards meet regularly and are a great way to plug into local environmental issues. Here's the list of upcoming events for New England. Check the paper this weekend or google around to find out what your local RAB is doing.

Another reason why auto industry restructuring could be good for the environment:

On another front, in 2002 the EPA cited General Motors as one of the top 100 corporate air polluters. Again in March of 2006 the Political Economy Research Institute rated General Motors as the 20th worst polluter. GM's legacy is more than just the jobs and incomes it provided. It has become painfully clear that where Americans live and work, they have experienced the inexcusable consequences of toxic chemicals being quietly dumped into the earth, water and air by irresponsible corporations including GM.

A bankruptcy court filing lists eleven GM sites that are contaminated or have environmental compliance obligations. It has been estimated that GM’s environmental liabilities surpass $525 million. Some of this real estate is identified on the New York state’s registry of hazardous waste sites and on the superfund list of most contaminated sites. Who will Washington choose to pick up the financial tab for cleaning up GM’s toxic mess? Will it be the taxpayers?

Ya think?

BUMPED: Autoblog:

According to reports, when GM exited bankruptcy, its polluted factory and land sites were consumed by the Motor Liquidation, allowing the automaker to avoid the responsibility of cleaning up its mess, and state leaders fear there won't be any money to clean the locations. [snip] The affected areas are afraid they will have to pay for the clean ups or simply let the land go unused. The problem with that: those local governments don't have the money. And they can't expect a developer to spend millions to clean up an old mess. If not Motors Liquidation or GM, civic representatives want the government to foot the bill since the current administration orchestrated the deal.

"...the government" footing the bill is most likely you and me. Not a done deal though. Scanning documents related to the Chapter 11 hearing it looks like the judge wasn't willing to absolve GM from its responsibilities under CERCLA.

 Dana Milbank:

"I'm also a bicyclist," testified Kenton Pattie of Falls Church. "I've been racing for many, many years." Further, he said, "I swam this morning for an hour and a half right next to the Beltway, off of Braddock Road." Pattie presented some surprising evidence to the officials: "Studies that show the IQ score has gone down as a result of -- by four points for children who were exposed to nitrogen dioxide."

"Do you have a reference for that?" asked the moderator, Rosalina Rodriguez.

"I may have to look it up," Pattie answered.

"Was it specifically NO2 or was it all traffic pollution?" asked David Orlin, an EPA lawyer.

"I can't answer that, not for sure," the witness replied. "I found this off the Internet."

The officials took notes.

Participation would have been even lighter if the American Lung Association hadn't chosen to flood the zone. Of the 24 speakers, 14 were chapter heads, volunteers, low-level staff members or top officials with the association -- and each delivered roughly the same talking points: that the EPA proposal is too lenient.

EPA's Lisa Jackson:

EPA is continuing to recognize that the United States has a unique legal relationship with tribal governments based on the Constitution, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. This relationship includes recognition of the right of Tribes – as sovereign governments – to act with self-determination, as well as an acknowledgment of the federal government’s trust responsibility to Tribes.

I’m proud to be with you today to formally reaffirm this policy. We’re sending a clear signal that EPA is leading the way in addressing the critical environmental issues affecting our tribal communities.

We certainly have our work cut out for us.

Solar and wind are useless unless they're connected to the grid. Where do we put 6,000 miles of transmission lines for all these new sites? The folks running things now are suing the folks who came up with Plan A. I doubt lawsuits will get us Plan B either.

And power tourist Julianne Couch clears security, dons a dosimeter and takes us inside a nuclear plant in far east Nebraska.

Excerpts:

...one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency...Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

So much for "overwhelming transparency." -D