According to documents filed in Minnesota courts last week, a renewable energy company in Minnesota told farmers that wind turbines would pay for themselves in a few months or years through a combination of grants and energy credits.  However, farmers who purchased the systems at a minimum price of $119,000 quickly found out that their money was difficult to come by—because Renewable Energy SD failed to actually provide the systems farmers had bought.

While in some cases the Minnesota Attorney General's office says that Renewable Energy SD provided no wind turbine whatsoever to the farmers who had bought them in the hopes of generating energy and making some money on the side with their farmland, in other cases they didn't help farmers to achieve the revenue projections they claimed were realistic when erecting a wind turbine.

The Minnesota AG filed for an emergency restraining order against Renewable Energy SD, saying that they should no longer be allowed to sell their wind turbine systems until complaints alleging that their systems were improperly maintained and installed are investigated.

Renewable Energy SD, which has a D- rating on the Better Business Bureau website after repeated complaints against the company, is accused of having scammed up to 150 customers who had purchased the six-figure wind turbine systems.

The state of Minnesota, particularly in its western half, is considered especially fertile territory for wind energy generation.  Renewable Energy SD told farmers and others that putting a wind turbine on their property would generate relatively fast returns.  According to documents obtained by the Attorney General's office, farmers were told that 30 percent of the cost of the windmills would be borne by tax credits, while the remaining 70 percent could be gotten by generating energy and selling it back to the energy companies for $700 to $1300 every month.  However, without fully functioning wind turbines, farmers say they were unable to realize anything close to the rate of return that they had been promised by Renewable Energy SD.

Four different individual farmers had filed individual lawsuits against Renewable Energy SD before the complaint was picked up by the Minnesota Attorney General.  According to the AG, Renewable Energy SD has also failed to renew its certificate of authority, meaning that any business it has transacted since August of 2012 has been without correct authorization from the state of Minnesota.

Source: mncourts.gov

President Obama nominated new heads for the EPA and the Department of Energy on Monday, triggering flurries of speculation about what the White House's energy and environmental policy will look like over the next four years.

With Obama's second term beginning, new appointments have had to be made for a wide range of cabinet level and lower positions.  Steven Chu, the former head of the Department of Energy, is heading back to California, while physicist Ernie Moniz was chosen as his replacement.

Moniz worked previously as Under Secretary of Energy during Bill Clinton's second term.  An MIT professor, Moniz spearheaded the Energy Initiative at the institute to create ideas to contribute to America's energy independence.

Gina McCarthy, an administrator at the EPA, was named to be its head.  The McCarthy pick may turn out to be controversial.  While McCarthy has gained a reputation as a pragmatic, straight shooting leader that earned her accolades from President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency has come under fire from Republicans in recent days and weeks for an alleged lack of transparency.

Previous EPA chiefs have been accused of violating federal transparency rules, including sending and receiving emails at non-federal addresses to avoid having their emails read.  The agency has also been accused of dragging its feet on Freedom of Information Act requests made by conservative groups hostile to the EPA, while allowing liberal groups prompt access when making similar requests.

The Senate has been reluctant to agree to a number of nominations from President Obama, and not just in his second term.  The position of Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has been vacant for longer than six years because Senate Republicans have so far filibustered any attempts made at a nomination.

Republicans have had longstanding objections to the Environmental Protection Agency, begun under Republican Richard Nixon to ensure that the federal government had the power to keep the nation's air, soil, and water clean.  According to many Republicans in the House and Senate, the EPA's focus on cleaner and alternative energy sources has lacked a balance with fossil fuel energy sources.  

Republicans from coal and oil states may try to block McCarthy's nomination in spite of her moderate stances, just to send a political message to the White House that indicates they are not happy with the way the agency has been handling its duties.

Sources: whitehouse.gov, congress.gov, senate.gov

On November 19, 2012, the Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a significant step for the cleanup of the Quanta Resources Superfund site located in Edgewater, New Jersey.  The EPA has reached an agreement with Honeywell International Inc and 23 other parties to start design work before construction for the project begins.  The agreement also requires Honeywell to handle cleanup procedures with oversight from the EPA. 

The Quanta Site cleanup is expected to allow the facility to operate again in the future, but there is a long road to recovery.  The site’s soil and ground water are currently contaminated with lead, arsenic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds—all capable of causing serious health problems and even cancer.

Once the project’s design is completed, cleanup will begin on the site beside the Hudson River.  The cleanup will take about two to three years and cost an estimated $78 million. 

The EPA split the investigation and cleanup into two different phases—one for contaminated soil and groundwater, and the other for the river and its sediment.  The first plan was finalized by July 2010, and as required by law, the EPA addressed public comments on the proposed cleanup project for 60 days.  The second part of the cleanup was finalized today on November 19, 2012, and the EPA is currently accepting public comment. 

The site was used as a coal tar facility starting in the 1880s.  In the 1970s, the site was used as a “tank farm” for storing waste oil before reprocessing, but the site was closed down in 1981 by the state of New Jersey after polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in the waste oil.  The waste oil, sludge, and contaminated water in the tanks were removed immediately, and the tanks were eventually taken off the site. 

Today, it is estimated there are 150,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil beneath the site.  The EPA has approved a plan to solidify areas around the soil contaminated with arsenic and oily liquid by introducing leak-proof blocks around the soil. 

The following companies have agreed to the EPA’s consent decree as well:

·  BASF Corporation

·  Beazer East Inc.

·  BFI Waste Systems of New Jersey Inc.

·  BorgWarner Inc.

·  Chemical Leaman Tank Lines Inc. (Quality Carriers)

·  Colonial Pipeline Co.

·  Consolidated Rail Corp.

·  Exxon Mobil Corp

·  Ford Motor Company

·  General Dynamics Land Systems Inc.

·  Hess Corp.

·   MillerBrewing Co.

·   NEAPCO Inc.

·   Northrup Grumman Systems Corp.

·   Petroleum Tank Cleaners Inc.

·   Rome Strip Steel Co. Inc.

·   Quanta Resources Corp.

·   Stanley Black & Decker Inc.

·   Textron Inc. 

·   United Technologies Corp.

EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck explained how the Superfund program works: “The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters should pay for the cleanups, rather than passing the costs to taxpayers.  “The EPA searches for parties responsible for the contamination and holds them accountable. This agreement is an important part of that process and a step in the right direction.”

Source: Department of Justice

On November 15, 2012, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) announced that the state acquired the Virgin Falls State Natural Area located in White County.  The Virgin Falls area has been under private ownership until the recent acquisition by the state, but the state has managed the natural area for about 40 years. 

The state was able to purchase the famous natural area by working with the Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation.  The state received funds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), and other private donors. 

The state was able to receive federal funding through the Endangered Species Recovery Land Acquisition Fund because there are four threatened and endangered species located on the 1,551 acres of property.  Apart from simply maintaining the property, the new federal funds will help restore some of the habitat through a land management plan. 

Commissioner Bob Martineau with TDEC stated: “TDEC wishes to acknowledge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and TWRA for their continued support.  Without the support of the USFWS endangered species grant program and TWRA’s generosity and guidance, the state would not be as successful in the recovery and protection of significant rare species and habitats like those within Virgin Falls.”

Virgin Falls is the most recent natural area established by the state since the Tennessee State Parks system was formed in 1937.  The Virgin Falls area is adjacent to the Bridgestone Firestone Centennial Wilderness Wildlife Management Area that is also owned by the state.  The gorges that make up Virgin Falls stretch for about 18 miles as the Caney Fork River descends from the Cumberland Plateau and drains into the Cumberland River. 

Most of the property will be managed by Tennessee State Parks and the State Natural Areas program, but the TWRA will also help maintain the property. 

Deputy Commissioner Brock Hill with TDEC stated: “This particular property possesses special qualities found on the Cumberland Plateau and its scenic beauty is hard to match.  We are particularly thankful for Kathleen Williams and the Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation for their immeasurable support and long-time commitment to protect this significant property, along with the many businesses and individuals who have generously contributed to the Virgin Falls effort.” 

There are a total of 54 state parks and 82 natural areas in the state.  These natural resources range from the Mississippi River to the Appalachian Mountains. 

Source: Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

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