Reporting Season

January through June every year is reporting season for environmental compliance people like myself. As annual reports go, the first is due on January 10th (a Michigan requirement), and the last is due July 1, with a bunch in between. So basically from January 2nd through the end of June most of industry's environmental peons are collecting, sorting, compiling, calculating, wading through, and sinking up to their chins in data. Different agencies and different states require pretty much the same data in different formats or for different purposes. I for example, report the amount of emissions generated from casting xx tons of iron in a given year. Some agencies want to know how many materials we have on site over 10,000 lbs, for emergency response purposes. Some agencies want to know how much air pollution was generated while we made xx tons of iron. Others want to know how much of all types of pollution was generated. Still others want to know only how much waste was generated. And others want to know how much water we sucked from the ground and how much we put back in. I also report that we're doing what our permits say we're supposed to be doing, or that we're not. I also have to create reports for nobody at all - files that sit in the file cabinets on the chance that an inspector will come by the facility and want to read them over, which does sometimes happen.

I generate a LOT of paper and I hate it. It is quite ironic that the environmental people at businesses create such incredible amounts of paper. Luckily, more and more agencies are converting to electronic or online report preparation and submission. In that case, the only paper actually required is usually just one signature page. That covers reports, but doesn't always cover your a$$. When an inspector shows up to view a report, we have to be able to show how we arrived at the numbers we've reported, and show backup documentation that supports them. Yep, more paper. Then, the electronic programs often don't let you copy last year's report and just change the production index, you actually have to enter all or most of the information again, which means you have to have a hard copy of last year's report. Yep, more paper.

Our environmental agencies, while getting better, are just as bureaucratic as any other government entity. They have an increasingly important job to do, so we should be fighting to streamline and improve the functioning of those agencies so more of the money can be channeled to the efforts that really matter.

Top Green Power Users

For the first time, a corporation ­leads EPA's national Top 25 list of green power purchasers. Wells Fargo & Company claimed the top spot, purchasing 550 million kilowatt hours annually. Organizations that purchase electricity generated from clean, renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass and low-impact hydro make up the quarterly list. After Wells Fargo & Company, Whole Foods Market ranks second and the U.S. Air Force ranks third. The U.S. EPA ranks fourth, with Johnson & Johnson rounding out the top five. Newcomers to the list include Cisco Systems Inc., New York University, Carbonfund.org, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and Kohl's Department Stores.

EPA's Top 25 green power purchasers are buying more than 4 billion kilowatt-hours of green power on an annual basis. This is equivalent to the energy needed to power more than 350,000 average American homes each year. The EPA Green Power Partnership encourages organizations to purchase green power as a way to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the use of electricity from fossil fuels and to diversify America's fuel supply. The partnership is comprised of a diverse set of organizations including Fortune 500 companies, small and medium businesses, government institutions as well as colleges and universities. EPA's Top 25 Green Power Partners is as follows, listed in order of purchase size:

1. Wells Fargo & Company

2. Whole Foods Market

3. U.S. Air Force

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

5. Johnson & Johnson

6. Starbucks

7. DuPont Company

8. U.S. Department of Energy

9. Vail Resorts Inc.

10. HSBC North America

11. Cisco Systems Inc.

12. Staples

13. New York University

14. The World Bank Group

15. University of Pennsylvania

16. IBM Corporation

17. Carbonfund.org

18. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

19. NatureWorks LLC

20. Sprint Nextel

21. Safeway Inc.

22. Pennsylvania State University

23. Kohl's Department Stores

24. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

25. The Tower Companies

So what? Well, if you're interested in putting your money where it may do some good (or at least less bad), buy some groceries from Whole Foods, take a loan from Wells Fargo, or buy some staples at Staples.

WaterSense

You've likely heard of the EnergyStar program under which products and buildings that meet certain energy efficiency criteria may display the EnergyStar logo. It's a convenient way for you and I to pick out appliances that are more efficient.

The EPA has a similar program for water efficiency called WaterSense. And now you can get your own throne with the WaterSense logo. Yep, efficient toilets are getting the nod. The news release says that by reducing from a standard 1.6 gallon flush toilet to a 1.3 flusher, it can save you 10% of your water bill. I don't think I flush that much, but who knows.

Right now they've only got irrigation systems and toilets, but hopefully they expand to things like dishwashers, clothes washers, and shower heads.

Cash Cows

I'm pretty much just copying this post from an EPA Enewsletter for lack of time today. It's an interesting topic and one way to clean up the dirty agriculture industry.

EPA and its partners have released guidance that can help farmers manage livestock waste and boost farm earnings while reducing greenhouse gases. Processing livestock manure under controlled conditions can produce biogas, a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers also benefit because the biogas can be used to generate electricity.

"Using biogas has multiple benefits; it decreases greenhouse gas emissions, produces renewable energy for rural communities, and safeguards local air and water quality," said Bill Wehrum, EPA's acting assistant administrator of Air and Radiation. "This guidance will help farmers and potential investors make informed choices about which systems work best for farms, for profits, and for our environment."

Biogas is made up of methane and carbon dioxide. Because methane is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, capturing biogas provides significant environmental benefits. Also, farmers and project developers can increase their incomes by using biogas for on-site electricity generation or delivery to a local electric utility.

Waste methane recovery systems, also known as anaerobic digestion systems, are estimated to be feasible at about 7,000 dairy and swine operations in the United States. In 2005, about 110 systems were operational or under construction, and another 80 were in the planning stages.

The standardized guidance was developed jointly by EPA's AgStar program, the Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions, and USDA. The guidance will provide a standardized method that will allow farm operators and investors to compare the effectiveness of available waste methane recovery systems.

AgStar is a voluntary program that encourages the use of waste methane recovery systems on dairy and swine farms. Each year, these systems have reduced methane by about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, while providing enough renewable energy to power over 20,000 average American homes. The program also assists countries throughout the world in developing biogas recovery projects through the Methane to Markets Partnership.

Information on the AgStar Protocol: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/resources/protocol.html General information on Methane to Markets Partnership: http://www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets

Green (colored) Lumber

I'm talking about the lumber that is visibly green - the wolmanized, or pressure treated lumber that takes up the majority of the lumber area in Lowe's or Home Depot. You've probably read or heard about some of the controversy over that lumber, like you should not burn it, or that you should wear gloves when handling it.

The EPA announced yesterday that they will not approve one of the treatments called Acid Copper Chromate (ACC) for residential use because of the potential for harmful effects on humans. ACC is just one of a handful of different pesticides used, and the others are linked in a box on the right side of the page.

If, like me, you've always wondered about treated lumber and why it's dangerous, browse those pages and you'll be much better informed.

Alternatives? Again, I'm sad to tell you that many alternatives are costly and have widely varying properties. One just simply cannot keep untreated lumber outside for very long without it literally falling apart, so unless you have a lot of money to spend, you may be stuck with treated lumber. Some alternate treatments are listed here.

I built a play set last summer and used treated lumber except up on the decking where the kids will be in contact with the material the most. Up there I used a composite, which is recycled plastic extruded with sawdust or wood chips. It's more expensive, heavier, and not as strong so you'll need more joists. But, you'll never have to seal it and it won't warp or shrink, and it's safe for the kids to play on (no slivers either).

So if you're thinking about building something this summer, start your research now and see what's available in your area. You may even ask you local lumberyard to order something they don't normally carry. That kind of request is one of the few ways to help bring more environmentally friendly products to the masses. Many people believe that if Lowe's doesn't have it, it doesn't exist.

New Mileage Label

The EPA announced today that they have ...dun duh dun... issued a new label for fuel economy display in 2008 model year vehicles. The one on the left is the old one, with the new one on the right. As far as I can tell, they contain almost exactly the same amount of information. I'd bet it took a couple thousand man-hours to come up with this new label. The EPA is an incredibly bureaucratic monstrosity full of inefficiencies and waste - just not the types they regulate - unfortunately. I digress.

I have owned some fuel inefficient vehicles - the most of which was my beloved 1986 K5 Blazer with a rebuilt 350, separate exhaust, and no catalytic converters (bought it that way). I think I got 12 mpg on a good day. When someone buys a vehicle like that, of course they don't care what the mileage is. I didn't care when I was in college and gas was $0.99. I just needed something to go 4-wheelin' and to hold both kayaks and my mountain bike on top. I don't want to know what my mileage was with all that up there!

Of course now I care, and our two vehicles get pretty darn good mileage. If you're shopping, I encourage you to consider mileage. A good place to start might be EPA's Green Vehicle Guide, or just click this post title.

Criticism aside, the EPA claims that it's new mileage analysis methods are more accurate starting with the 2008 models (concurrent with new sticker). I hope that's true. Our dependence on oil, and the painful drain on our wallets, needs to decrease.