Green Club an EPA charade

The EPA touts the perk-filled program, but has recruited some firms with dismal environmental records.

December 09, 2008|By John Sullivan and John Shiffman, Inquirer Staff Writers
(Page 9 of 11)

Performance Track relies on states, which enforce most federal environmental laws, to ease regulatory oversight of its members. At least 19 states partner with the program, but others remain wary - including Lisa Jackson, New Jersey's former Department of Environmental Protection chief and now chief of staff to Gov. Corzine.

"For a long time, they tried to pressure us to partner and we said no," Jackson said in October, before she became an Obama transition adviser. "I think it's just one of those window-dressing programs that has little value."

Story continues below.

Francine Carlini, regional director for air quality in Southeastern Pennsylvania, said EPA had asked the state to dispense with some of its usual regulatory duties.

"It all sounds good . . . but you can't give away the store to get that done," she said. "Imagine if we went to a landfill and they said, 'We're in Performance Track,' and we said we wouldn't inspect them. There is kind of a disconnect here. That's the problem."

But Sharon Baxter, who runs Virginia's Environmental Excellence Program, which complements Performance Track, thinks it works well.

"Having that plaque on the wall is a huge motivator for management," Baxter said.

The case of DuPont

One quality that Performance Track demonstrates consistently is loyalty to its members.

Even after companies are accused of violating environmental rules and pay huge fines, Performance Track is reluctant to kick them out.

Consider what happened when the program discovered that a member facility in Newark, Del., was under investigation for allegedly keeping important health information from the public.

The Performance Track member was DuPont's Stine Haskell Research Center, which had been lauded by the EPA in 2004 and 2005 for, among other things, recycling mercury from the lab's lightbulbs.

During those same years, EPA's enforcement arm was pursuing the lab for withholding information about a likely carcinogen - perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA - used to make Teflon and other nonstick plastics.

DuPont began studying PFOA in the 1960s and by the 1980s suspected it was toxic to humans, according to the EPA.

In 1984 the company realized that the chemical was turning up in the drinking water of nearly 50,000 people living near its Washington Works in West Virginia. By 1991, DuPont discovered that PFOA levels in the water there surpassed its own safety guidelines. The chemical was also accumulating in the bodies of DuPont workers.

« Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next »
|
|
|
|
|