The controversial hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” technique for natural gas drilling came under fire again last week as a driller from Poland, Ohio was indicted by a jury in Youngstown.  The driller, Benedict Lupo, was charged with violations of federal environmental laws that could result in a prison sentence of up to three years and a fine of up to $250,000.

Lupo, along with his company and one of its employees, were charged with crimes stemming from the alleged dumping of over 20,000 gallons of waste from a fracking site.  The toxic liquids, which included heavy metals and crude oil in salt water, also contained benzene and toluene, two hazardous substances that are part of the waste generated from hydraulic fracturing operations.

In order to drill a well for natural gas using hydraulic fracking, water and toxic solvents are pumped hundreds of tons at a time into rock deep under the ground.  The pressure of the water forces the rock to open up, which exposes pockets of natural gas that formed millions of years ago.

While fracking always generates toxic waste, the state of Ohio has designated specific injection wells for the disposal of this waste.  Using this form of disposal costs money, though, and Lupo's company is accused of choosing instead to dispose of the fracking waste into a storm drain.

Unlike sanitary sewers (the kind used for toilets), storm sewers don't lead to a treatment facility and instead dump directly into the water supply.  The Mahoning River in Youngstown is where the 20,000 gallons of solvents and salt water eventually ended up, according to the prosecution in the case.

After receiving an anonymous tip regarding illegal dumping, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources sent agents to observe the location where the dumping was supposedly occurring.  These agents allegedly saw additional dumping taking place in front of them.

Even after his federal trial is over, Benedict Lupo could be in for additional legal trouble from the state of Ohio.  The state Attorney General's office is currently investigating accusations that Lupo's company stored fracking waste improperly and transported it in potentially hazardous ways, both of which are civil infractions with fines of up to $25,000 per day.

While the trial is being conducted, Lupo's operating permits for his six fracking sites have been pulled by the state.  Fracking has come under fire from many environmental groups nationwide, which say that the risks of toxic pollutants going into the environment makes hydraulic fracturing a bad energy investment.

Source: uscourts.gov

On November 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection awarded $418,049 of grants to 56 small businesses throughout the state to help them become energy efficient or prevent pollution. 

The grant program, called the Small Business Advantage Grant program, is funded under the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act.  The program applies to businesses with 100 or less employees, and it provides reimbursements of 50 percent up to $9,500.  The projects ultimately help the small businesses reduce pollution by 25 percent or save up to 25 percent in energy costs. 

Since the program began in 2004, 1,642 small businesses in the state have received $6.6 million.

The grants are announced twice every year, and the budget for the grants during the fiscal year is $1 million.  The 56 new grants are expected to create private-sector investment up to $1,542,437 for small businesses. 

Some common projects funded by the grants include upgrades on insulation and high-efficiency HVAC, efficient lighting systems, installation of efficient heat pumps, and new auxiliary power units to help trucks reduce idling time. 

The following grants are listed alphabetically by county:

Bedford County
Graham Trucking, $4,350

Berks County
Berks Gymnastics, $4,815
Bruno’s Trucking LLC, $4,350
Shawn R. Habakus, DMD, $9,500

Bradford County
Ram Tire and Auto Service, $4,865

Butler County
Hutchinson Dry Cleaners, $9,500
Warren C. Sauers Co. Inc., $4,350

Chester County
Nova Cleaners, $8,630

Cumberland County
Business Development Systems Inc., $9,500
R.D.S. Transport LLC, $5,400
Quality Cleaners Inc., $9,500

Erie County
JLS Trucking, $4,350

Forest County
Cathedral Pines Inc., $5,855

Jefferson County
Barber Trucking Inc., $9,500
Jodat Technologies Co. Inc., $6,806
Mary’s Place, $9,409

Lancaster County
Abel Tire Inc., $3,747
Hendricks’ Flowers, $9,500

Lehigh County
Suh’s Sun Cleaners Inc., $9,500

Luzerne County
Jim Jaster LLC, $9,500

Lycoming County
Faxon Cleaners Inc., $4,539
Hermance and Strouse Inc., $9,295
Paulhamus Litho Inc., $9,500
West Branch Tennis Club, $3,449

McKean County
The Grocery Stretcher, $7,761

Mercer County
Franklin Trucking, $4,350
Respect Trucking Inc., $4,887
Wheaton Dry Cleaners, $8,038

Mifflin County
K.R.W. Services Inc., $4,350
Kerstetter Trucking, $9,500
Monument Square Center LLC, $9,500

Monroe County
Personal Touch Cleaners of Tannersville Inc., $9,500

Montgomery County
King of Prussia Veterinary Hospital, $9,500
Ralph’s Corner Cleaners and Tailors, $9,500

Northampton County
David L. Danner, $1,612
Tobacco and More Inc., $1,310

Philadelphia County
Adam’s Run Cleaners, $9,500
Amy Swan Cleaners Inc., $9,500
Choice Cleaners Inc., $9,500
Hahn Shelmire Cleaners, $9,500
Jones Smith Assoc. LLC, $7,250
New Riff Cleaners, $9,500
P and J One Hour Cleaners, $9,500
Professional One Hour Cleaners, $ 9,500
6301 Royal Cleaners Inc., $9,500
S. M. and Jake Inc., $9,500
Saul N. Miller DDS, $9,500
TGV Inc., $9,500
Yoon’s Family Cleaners, $9,500

Schuylkill County
Edward’s Flowers, $2,218

Snyder County
Ideal Self Storage LLC, $3,955

Susquehanna County
Creative Window and Door Inc., $8,258

Washington County
Bedner’s Farm and Greenhouse, $9,500
Minerd and Sons Inc., $9,500

Westmoreland County
Gilbert P. Hribal II, $4,350

Wyoming County
Penn’s Best Inc., $9,500

Small businesses are encouraged to apply for the bi-annual grants in Pennsylvania.  For more information on the Small Business Advantage Grant Program, call the Small Business Ombudsman’s Office at (717) 772-8909.

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

On November 16, 2012, Australia’s Environment Minister, Tony Burke, announced requirements to protect over 2.3 million square kilometers of ocean environment.  The area of protected ocean now becomes the largest protected area of sea in the world. 

Praising Australia, Burke stated, “Australia is a world leader when it comes to protecting our oceans, and so we should be, we've got responsibility for more of the ocean than almost any other country on Earth.”

Some commercial fishers expressed their outrage over the reservation of the marine environments, but the Australian government has taken several measures to ensure fishers are least affected by the marine sanctuaries. 

Burke stated, “Even though the new marine reserves have been designed in a way to minimize impacts on industry and recreational users, the Government recognizes that there will be impacts on some fishers and we will support those impacted.”

Additionally, the Australian Government has allocated about $100 million for fisheries adjustment assistance. 

The management plans will follow the schedule below:

·  the plans will address how the reserves should be managed, what types of gear can be used in the reserves, and what activities cannot occur in the reserves

·  while the development of the management plans occur, temporary arrangements will be made for commercial and recreational fishers

·  no “on the water” changes will be made for users of the area from November 17, 2012 until the new management plans become effective in July of 2014

·  all areas with existing management policies will continue to follow the regulations until the new management policies take effect in July of 2014

The new marine reserves are established in the following large marine regions:

Coral Sea Region

This region covers an area half the size of Queensland and is an important nesting site for green turtles as well as an important habitat for sharks and predatory fish. 

Southwest Marine Region

This area stretches from South Australia to Shark Bay in Western Australia.  It is an important breeding ground for species like southern right whales, blue whales, and the Australian Sea Lion. 

Temperate East Marine Region

This area stretches from the southern-most boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to Bermagui in New South Wales.  This area is home to the endangered grey nurse shark and threatened white shark. 

Northwest Marine Region

This is an area between the border of the Western Australian/Northern Territory and Kalbarri in Western Australia.  The area is home to the largest fish in the world, the whale shark, and provides protection for migratory humpback whales. 

North Marine Region

This area extends as far west to the border of the Northern Territory and Western Australia and includes the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Arafura Sea, and Timor Sea.  This area provides refuge for migratory seabirds, and threatened flatback, hawksbill, green, and olive marine turtles use the area as a resting area. 

Source: AU Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

On November 14, 2012, conservation groups filed a suit against the federal government for lifting protection of wolves in Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service originally handed responsibility of wolf management over to the state, even though the Kill-at-Will Wolf Policy is now allowed throughout most of the state of Wyoming. 

Conservation groups claim that wolves are only offered limited protection in areas not covered by the Kill-at-Will Wolf Policy, and they also claim that huge numbers of wolves will be killed and stop the recovery of the wolf population in Wyoming.  The group filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist living in Jackson Hole, stated: “Wyoming’s wolf-management plan is poor policy, weak in its protection of wolves, and based on flimsy science.  Wyoming's plan sets a very disturbing precedent for other states by abdicating management responsibility of a native wildlife species over approximately 85 percent of the state.”

A total of 49 wolves have been killed in Wyoming since the state took over management plans on October 1, 2012.  The killings were performed by state hunting exercises and by private citizens in the “predator zones.”  The number is likely higher because of unreported kills, and the number has already severely reduced the wolf population.  There were only about 328 wolves in the state before the state took over management plans. 

Wolves within the predator zones can be shot, snared or trapped, and the wolves can be pursued by helicopters, planes, ATVs, and snowmobiles.  Wolf pups are even allowed to be killed in their dens. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied Wyoming the right to manage their own wolf population in the past because of strict anti-wolf laws in the state, but the state is now virtually free to do what it wants with the wolves in the predator zones.  Conservation groups and independent studies state the reintroduction of gray wolves into the northern Rockies has helped increase the region’s economy and restore ecological balance.  

Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director with the Center for Biological Diversity, stated: “Like past versions of Wyoming’s wolf plan—which were rejected by the Fish and Wildlife Service—the new plan fails to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of these unique animals. The decision to remove protections for Wyoming’s wolves failed to rely on best science. It’s a tragic political intrusion into what should be the scientifically guided management of an important endangered species.”

Source: EarthJustice

On November 8, 2012, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) fined DARN Properties, LLC in Milford for violating state asbestos regulations.  The company was fined a total of $28,372.50 in connection with a renovation project in September of 2011. 

During the renovations, the Mass DEP performed an inspection to make sure any possible asbestos was removed correctly.  During the inspection, it was determined that DARN Properties, LLC removed floor tiles with asbestos and disposed of the tiles in an open-air dumpster on the property. 

Once the Mass DEP discovered the asbestos violations, it required DARN Properties to contact the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards immediately and hire a licensed asbestos contractor to follow protocol in handling, packaging, and disposing of the asbestos tiles.  The dumpster as well as all affected areas on the property were decontaminated as well. 

The Mass DEP fined DARN Properties for these specific violations: “Failing to notify Mass DEP of a demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing materials; and for the improper removal, handling, packing, labeling and storage of asbestos-containing waste materials.” 

State regulations, as well as federal regulations, require companies to notify the Mass DEP or their state’s environmental regulatory agency before the removal of the asbestos begins.  Proper removal and disposal procedures are particularly important with asbestos because the fibers can cause serious health problems. 

The company is required to pay an assessed penalty of $8,500 immediately.  The rest of the fine will be suspended ($19,872.50) if the company follows proper protocol and has no other violations for an entire year. 

Lee Dillard Adams, the director of Mass DEP’s Central Regional Office, announced: “Owners involved with building renovation work must be fully aware of their responsibilities under the regulations to ensure the proper removal, handling, packaging and disposal of asbestos-containing materials.”

He went on say, “Failure to notify Mass DEP of asbestos removal, and to follow prescribed work practices is an extremely serious, and ultimately a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers, tenants and the general public to a known carcinogen.”

If you’re a property owner or contractor and have questions about materials containing asbestos, procedures for asbestos removal, or regulations on asbestos, you should contact the Mass DEP for more information.  You can call 617-292-5500 or write:

1 Winter Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Mass DEP helps enforce clean air and clean water standards, the management of solid and hazardous waste, and the preservation of wetlands and beaches. 

Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Following one of the worst droughts in history, several states asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waiver the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)—which requires a certain amount of renewable fuel in standard fuels—in order to provide economic relief.  The EPA released its decision on November 16, 2012. 

According to the EPA, there is no evidence that “severe economic harm” has been caused by the droughts, and thus the agency has decided not to waiver the RFS.  The EPA made its decision after an economic analyses and modeling was performed by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The economic analyses looked directly as the financial harm caused by the drought to the agricultural sector and energy sector.  The EPA and USDA concluded that lifting the mandate would only reduce current prices by about one percent.  Additionally, the EPA and DOE concluded that lifting the mandate would not impact household energy costs at all. 

Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, stated: “We recognize that this year’s drought has created hardship in some sectors of the economy, particularly for livestock producers.  But our extensive analysis makes clear that Congressional requirements for a waiver have not been met and that waiving the RFS will have little, if any, impact.” 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires the EPA to make renewable fuel standards and make sure all fuel used for transportation contains a certain amount of renewable fuel.  The mandate can only be lifted if the EPA finds that serious economic harm is caused by the RFS.  No such evidence was found. 

The EPA reported that that it looked at the harm to state and regional economies as well as the national economy during the years of 2012 and 2103, but no evidence of severe economic harm was found. 

The recent waiver request is the second such request submitted to the EPA since the EPAct was passed in 2005.  The state of Texas asked for a waiver in 2008, but the EPA also denied the request. 

This year’s request is the first time multiple states have asked for relief.  The drought experienced in 2012 was one of the worst in history. Although the Dust Bowl drought in the 1930s and droughts during the 1950s were even worse, the drought in 2012 caused severe damage to crops and significantly increased costs for feeding and raising livestock.  Some have blamed the droughts on global warming. 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

On November 9, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services declared that the last unlined landfill in the state stopped operations.  Before officially closing, the Farmington landfill made improvements to grading and drainage, and a low-permeability soil cap was put into place. 

Thomas S. Burack, the NH DES Commissioner, made note that a large percentage of landfills in the state used methods that affected the land, air, water, and human health before the Department of Environmental Services was created in 1987. 

Burack noted that before the formation of the DES, “Residents [in most towns] brought their trash to the “town dump,” where it was burned in the open or in low-tech incinerators, or dumped on the land directly.”  He went on to say that “Partially burned and unburned waste was often left uncovered, inviting vermin and posing a risk of disease transmission.”

Open burning stopped in New Hampshire by the mid-1980s, but many of the landfills remained unlined.  Most landfills would simply cover the trash with soil by the end of each day, and 108 unlined municipal landfills were still operating in 1987.  All these landfills contaminated groundwater—some more than others. 

State and federal laws encouraged New Hampshire municipalities to stop operating unlined landfills by the early 1990s, but the closing of the landfills put a large amount of financial burden on some towns because of capping, drainage, and groundwater monitoring requirements. 

In order to address the financial strain, the Unlined Municipal Landfill Closure Grant Program was passed in 1994.  Under the grant, towns became eligible for a 20 percent matching grant if they closed their unlined landfill properly.  The program was embraced more and more, and with the closing of the last unlined landfill in Farmington, the program has provided $30 million to a total of 116 towns to help close 107 unlined landfills. 

Thomas Burack praised the closing of the last unlined landfill, but he made clear that the state still faces huge challenges in solid waste management.   The state still needs to address how to reduce the overall amount of waste and how to increase recycling and composting.  Additionally, the state needs to embrace more waste-to-energy technologies, land-filling procedures, and incineration techniques.

The state of New Hampshire is responsible for roughly 1.3 million tons of solid waste each year.  It is estimated that each person is accountable for about four pounds of solid waste every year. 

Source: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services