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

The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently announced that it took a considerable amount of actions against people who violated animal welfare regulations.  APHIS has attempted to make the violations transparent and has provided copies of court documents, official warnings, and more. 

The following administrative complaints were filed by APHIS in October for violating the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Horse Protection Act (HPA):

AWA Docket No. 13-0012; Willa Page

Willa Mae Page was charged with selling dogs at numerous auctions on several occasions without a USDA license—directly violating 9 C.F.R. § 2.1(a)(1).  The USDA has asked her to cease and desist immediately, pay civil penalties, and never again try to obtain a license under the Act again. 

AWA Docket No. 13-0024: David Still; Gloria Still

The respondents were charged with failing to maintain requirements for veterinary care—a direct violation of 9 C.F.R. §2.40.  The shelters for dogs were uncleanly, humid and hot, and cramped.  The dogs did not receive potable water on many occasions, and many APHIS employees were harassed when performing inspections.  The USDA is asking to suspend their licenses and have the respondents cease and desist immediately and pay civil fines. 

A USDA administrative law judge issued decisions and orders in the following case:

APHIS Case No. CA08462; Robert Conyers Customers Brokerage

Robert Conyers was cited for multiple violations in handling nonhuman primates.  He was cited for violating registration requirements, water and food requirements, ventilation requirements, and more during transportation of the primates.  Specifically, he violated 9 C.F.R § 2.25(a), 9 C.F.R § 3.86(c), 9 C.F.R §3.87(c), 9 C.F.R § 3.87(d)(2), and 9 C.F.R § 3.89(c). 

USDA administrative law judges heard multiple other cases, issued multiple decisions, and issued multiple orders in other cases well.  The selections chosen above simply reflect recent cases heard by the USDA. 

The AWA is enforced to make sure minimum requirements and treatment occurs in commercial breeding and selling, research, and transportation for exhibitions.  The Act applies to animals raised for food, and the Act specifically addresses housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from weather and temperature. 

The HPA prohibits horses with soring to participate in shows, sales, auctions, exhibitions, or similar events.  Soring is abusive technique used to highlight the horse’s foot movement, or gait.  The USDA is allowed to conduct random investigations and enforce the AWA and HPA at any time. 

Source: United States Department of Agriculture

According to a recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), organic dairy farms provide more jobs and economic opportunity in rural communities than standard dairy farms.  The study, called “Cream of the Crop: The Economic Benefits of Organic Dairy Farms,” measured the economic value of organic milk. 

The report looked at financial data from two major states in milk production, Vermont and Minnesota.  From 2008 to 2011, Vermont had a total of 180 organic farms that added about $76 million to the state’s economy and supported about 1,009 jobs.  Minnesota had a total of 114 organic farms that added $78 million to the state’s economy and support about 660 jobs. 

The demand for organic milk has greatly increased in the last 10 years for several reasons.  Mainly, consumers are more aware of the nutritional benefits of organic milk over milk produced in crowded and polluted confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  Organic dairy farming is currently a $750 million industry, and sales increased by 12 percent and 10 percent in 2010 and 2011. 

Programs under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDSA) and subsidies still favor large CAFOs though.  Jeffrey O’Hara, author of the report and agricultural economist for the UCS’s Food and Environment Program, stated: “Over the past 30 years, dairy farmers have had a choice: either get big or get out. Dairy farmers either had to expand dramatically and become large industrial operations or they went out of business.”

The current Farm Bill provides little support to organic dairy farmer, but the UCS provides several recommendations to legislators now that the elections are over. 

For one, the USDA needs to revise milk marketing orders that have not been revised since the 1930s.  The orders set the minimum prices that dairy processors need to pay farmers, and the old orders do not address organic milk production. 

Secondly, Congress and the USDA need to form a subsidized insurance program for organic farmers.  Current subsidized insurance only applies to standard dairies. 

Lastly, Congress needs to increase funding to organic agriculture entities.  The USDA should also form programs that support development in regional areas, especially rural development grants. 

O’Hara commented, “More and more consumers across the country are choosing organic milk, but Washington hasn’t gotten the message.  Investing in organic dairy production would pay off in multiple ways by keeping small farm businesses afloat, promoting local economic growth, reducing farm pollution, and meeting growing consumer demand.” 

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists