Thinking Green with a little Cabernet Sauvignon

Some observations, over the past four months five mid size Environmental,Engineering firms were purchased by much larger ones. Geomatrix,Secor,Delta,Earth Tech,and LFR.
These firms were in the 100 million plus range for yearly revenues.This is creating a void in mid size Environmental/Engineering companies.Hopefully these firms will be blended in and their core essence will provide value in their new cultures.

While everyone is thinking green,it might be good to sit down and pour a nice NAPA Cabernet, and say a toast to those firms and the people that dedicated their efforts in making things a little better for all. I know what it is like after you say good bye to a 1999 Stags Leap Cellars Cab. You are happy for the experience and taste but a little sad to see it go.

I wish all the people and the firms the best in their new homes.

Budman

Plants Converted Directly Into Biogasoline, Not Ethanol

MADISON, Wisconsin, March 27, 2008 (ENS) - A Wisconsin bioscience company and Royal Dutch Shell say they have developed a process to convert plant sugars directly into gasoline and gasoline blend components, rather than ethanol.

The collaboration aims to create new biofuels that can be used at high blend rates in standard gasoline engines in place of fossil fuels. This could potentially eliminate the need for specialized infrastructure, new engine designs and blending equipment.

The patented and trademarked BioForming process pioneered by Virent Energy Systems, Inc. of Madison converts plant sugars into hydrocarbon molecules like those produced at a petroleum refinery. The biomass feedstocks are converted into conventional hydrocarbon fuels and products, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

"The technical properties of today's biofuels pose some challenges to widespread adoption," said Dr. Graeme Sweeney, Shell executive vice president Future Fuels and C02. "Fuel distribution infrastructure and vehicle engines are being modified to cope but new fuels on the horizon, such as Virent's, with characteristics similar or even superior to gasoline and diesel, are very exciting."

Virent's Dr. Randy Cortright holds a beaker of the company's biogasoline. (Photo courtesy Shell)

Traditionally, sugars have been fermented into ethanol and distilled. These new "biogasoline" molecules have higher energy content than ethanol or butanol and deliver better fuel efficiency.

"They can be blended seamlessly to make conventional gasoline or combined with gasoline containing ethanol," the companies said Wednesday in a statement.

The sugars can be sourced from non-food sources like corn stover, switchgrass, wheat straw and sugarcane pulp, in addition to conventional biofuel feedstock like wheat, corn and sugarcane.

The companies have so far collaborated for one year on the research. They say the technology has advanced rapidly, exceeding milestones for yield, product composition, and cost.

Future efforts will focus on further improving the technology and scaling it up for larger volume commercial production.

Dr. Randy Cortright, Virent chief technology officer, co-founder and executive vice president, said, "Virent has proven that sugars can be converted into the same hydrocarbon mixtures of today's gasoline blends. Our products match petroleum gasoline in functionality and performance."

"Virent's unique catalytic process uses a variety of biomass-derived feedstocks to generate biogasoline at competitive costs. Our results to date fully justify accelerating commercialization of this technology," said Cortright.

Virent has 68 employees located in a state-of-the-art catalytic biorefining development facility in Madison. The technology is based on the Aqueous Phase Reforming process, which Virent has exclusively licensed from the Wisconsin Alumni Redation.

Cortright says the biogasoline process delivers more net energy and offers a scalable, cost-effective alternative to traditional biofuel production routes.

Headquartered in the Netherlands and the UK, Royal Dutch Shell companies have operations in more than 130 countries, with businesses including: oil and gas exploration; production and marketing of liquefied natural gas and gas to liquids; marketing and shipping of oil products and chemicals; and renewable energy projects including wind, solar and biofuels.

Natural Resource Damages (NRD): A Sleeping Giant?

Anyone who operates a chemical, petrochemical or bulk petroleum terminal facility has likely encountered a natural resource damages (NRD) claim. But since NRD claims have historically only been assessed after a catastrophic environmental contamination event, such as the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, many risk professionals may not have had any experience with them at all. This may be about to change, however, with many now referring to natural damages as a "sleeping giant" due to the potential lor vast recoveries under a host of federal and state laws. Before moving onto a more detailed discussion of this type of claim, first, it is is important to ensure we understand the necessary language.

Natural resource damages can be defined as compensation for injuries to natural resources sustained in the course of a spill or release of contamination or pollutants to the environment, with "injuries" referring to any measurable adverse change in the physical or chemical quality or viability of the resource.

Damages, (considered residual damages, i.e., they cannot be addressed by remedial or corrective action) may be assessed on the reduction in quantity or quality of natural resource services, with "resource services" referring to the physical and biological functions performed by natural resources, (food, habitat, drinking water and recreation), including the human use of those services.

Natural resources are also governed by a number of federal laws including the Superfund (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or CERCLA ), the oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the Clean Water Act. The protected elements include "land, fish wildlife, biota, air, water, drinking water supplies and other such sources" that are held in trust of the public or trust resources. The State of New York, for example, has designated the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as the natural resource trustee.
An NRD claim is defined as the injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the costs for a natural resource damage assessment. Such assessments, which are typically directed by the natural resource trustee, consist of analyzing the injury and determining the appropriate restoration or service options during a damage settlement.

Superfund and OPA-through enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as various state statutes-not only hold parties responsible for the remediation of hazardous waste sites, contaminated properties and oil spills not only liable for remediation, but also for the resulting NRD. Historically, NRDrelated fines have been assessed as a result of a catastrophic ecological disaster (Exxon's NRD settlement totaled $900 million after Valdez); however, states are now attempting to seek restoration and compensation for damages involving natural resources involving routine pollution.

Click here to read the full article posted by Red Orbit.

Long-term Management Strategies for Major Liability Sites

Project Navigator, Ltd. has been working with some clients to formulate long-term management strategies for major liability sites. These sites will most likely have to be retained by the company, and not transferred for fee, to another party.

Clients are interested in reducing costs with revenue from green technologies which could operate on the "surficial platform" the site provides. Project Navigator planning work shows that remediated, former waste sites, if appropriately located, could host wind and/or solar farms.
We now note that New York-based Allco Renewable Energy plans to develop a $45 million solar energy project atop a former hazardous waste site near Coventry, RI.

Click here as the following Waste Business Journal press release explains more...

Lawsuit Targets EPA Over Lack of Superfund Financial Assurance Rules

Date: March 24, 2008
Source: Waste Business Journal -News Room

Environmentalists have recently filed a lawsuit to force the EPA to issue Superfund financial assurance rules as required but never promulgated by the agency in the 22 years since it was supposed to have been done. Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and other groups filed their suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to the brief, the bankruptcies of companies like Asarco, the century-old mining giant estimated to be liable for more than $1 billion in environmental cleanup, along with the expiration of the Superfund taxes on industry, underscore the need for the financial assurances as a means of ensuring cleanup costs are not shifted onto citizens.

The EPA has had difficulty developing the rules in part because of the legal requirements to issue them on a sector-by-sector basis. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced legislation to force the EPA to craft rules but Congress has yet to act on it. Similarly, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced H.R. 2262 that includes provisions mandating that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forrest Service require that companies mining on federal lands maintain financial assurances. The environmentalists' CERCLA suit seeks to put the financial assurances on par with those under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and seeks to address electric utilities, metal finishers, solvent and battery recyclers and wood treatment facilities and other industries.

Antarctic shelf 'hangs by thread'

A chunk of ice the size of the Isle of Man has started to break away from Antarctica in what scientists say is further evidence of a warming climate. Satellite images suggest that part of the ice shelf is disintegrating, and will soon crumble away.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf has been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s. Six ice shelves in the same part of the continent have already been lost, says the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). Professor David Vaughan of BAS said: "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

"I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread - we'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."

BAS researchers were alerted to the break-up by daily monitoring of satellite images. They sent a Twin Otter aircraft on a reconnaissance mission to video what was happening. Jim Elliott, who was on board the plane, said he had never seen anything like it before. He said: "We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage. "Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble - it's like an explosion."

A 41-by-2.5km (25-by-1.6 mile) berg appears to be breaking away, with much of the Wilkins Ice Shelf protected only by a thin strip of ice spanning two islands. Since an ice shelf is a floating platform of ice, the break-up will have no impact on sea level. But scientists say it heightens concerns over the impact of climate change on this part of Antarctica.

Click here for the full BBC article.

CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lights) Secrets for Success

After a lifetime with incandescent bulbs around the house, compact fluorescents can be confusing. Some tips:

1. Codes for colors: Light from CFLs does not look like light from other sources. The U.S. Department of Energy recognizes six color categories, indicated by a number on the base of the bulb that ends with a "K." The range is from 2,700K (the most yellow, or "warm white") to 6,500K (the most blue, or "daylight").

2. Efficiency standards: Products marked "Energy Star" have met efficiency guidelines set by the federal government.

3. Cost savings: A typical CFL costs much more to purchase than a typical incandescent but saves even more money over its lifetime because it uses less energy and lasts far longer. Online calculators can get very specific.

4. Mercury hazard: The risk from 5 mg in a broken bulb is negligible, but it still must be cleaned carefully. The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines include opening all the windows in the room for 15 minutes and scraping the debris into a sealable plastic bag or jar. The EPA has a 12 step process for cleanup if the light bulb breaks.

5. Disposal: Because of the mercury hazard, CFLs should be recycled (separately from household bottles and cans). Curbside pickup is rare, but some stores and various hazardous-waste programs accept them.

The next big technology: LEDs (light-emitting diodes) are less-developed for household use than CFLs but promise even greater savings eventually.

Source: The Daily Mail

Black Carbon Pollution Emerges As Major Player In Global Warming

ScienceDaily (Mar. 24, 2008) — Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2. The researchers also noted, however, that mitigation would have immediate societal benefits in addition to the long term effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"Observationally based studies such as ours are converging on the same large magnitude of black carbon heating as modeling studies from Stanford, Caltech and NASA," said Ramanathan. "We now have to examine if black carbon is also having a large role in the retreat of arctic sea ice and Himalayan glaciers as suggested by recent studies."

Click here to read the full Science Daily article.

It's interesting to note, that of the new sites just listed onto the NPL, two of them are sediments sites. While these types of sites, in general, will continue to be added to the NPL in lower numbers, it seems that the response actions and costs will be more complicated and costly, than the more normal "terrestrial sites," we have commonly managed during the last two decades.

For example, I was just looking at the remedial alternatives which are being considered in the RI/FS process at Passaic River, NJ, and the largest scoped solutions, which incorporate substantial dredging, are forecast to exceed $2 Billion....so in a word, there are big opportunities to drive cost savings via value engineering and just sheer straightforward creativity.

New NPL Sites

EPA Adds 12 and Proposes Six Sites to Superfund’s National Priorities List

Release date: 03/19/2008

Contact Information: Roxanne Smith, (202) 564-4355 / smith.roxanne@epa.gov

(Washington, D.C. - March 19, 2008) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is adding 12 new hazardous waste sites that pose risks to human health and the environment to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. EPA is also proposing to add six other sites to the list. Superfund is the federal program that investigates and cleans up the most complex uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country.

To date, there have been 1,581 sites listed to the NPL. Of these sites, 324 sites have been deleted resulting in 1,257 final sites on the NPL. With the proposal of the six new sites, there are 60 proposed sites awaiting final agency action: 55 in the general Superfund section and five in the federal facilities section. There are a total 1,317 final and proposed sites on the NPL.

Contaminants found at these final and proposed sites include arsenic, barium, carbon tetrachloride, chromium, copper, dichloroethene, dioxins, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethane, trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride and zinc.

With all Superfund sites, EPA tries to identify and locate the parties potentially responsible for the contamination. For the newly listed sites without viable potentially responsible parties, EPA will investigate the full extent of the contamination before starting significant cleanup at the site. Therefore, it may be several years before significant cleanup funding is required for these sites.

Sites may be placed on the list through various mechanisms:

• Numeric ranking established by EPA’s Hazard Ranking System.
• Designation by states or territories of one top-priority site.
• Meeting all three of the following requirements:
  • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends removing people from the site;
  • EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
  • EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.

For Federal Register notices and supporting documents for these final and proposed sites, visit: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/current.htm

The following 12 sites have been added to the National Priorities List:

Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination (Elkhart, Ind.)

Plating Inc. (Great Bend, Kan.)

Washington County Lead District - Old Mines (Old Mines, Mo.)

Washington County Lead District – Potosi (Potosi, Mo.)

Washington County Lead District – Richwoods (Richwoods, Mo.)

Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek (Gibbsboro, N.J.)

Chem-Fab (Doylestown, Pa.)

San German Ground Water Contamination (San German, Puerto Rico)

Donna Reservoir and Canal System (Donna, Texas)

Midessa Ground Water Plume (Odessa, Texas)

San Jacinto River Waste Pits (Harris County, Texas)

Hidden Lane Landfill (Sterling, Va.)

The following six sites have been proposed to the National Priorities List:

Iron King Mine – Humboldt Smelter (Dewey-Humboldt, Ariz.)

Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock (Creede, Colo.)

Flash Cleaners (Pompano Beach, Fla.)

Aberdeen Contaminated Ground Water (Aberdeen, N.C.)

Attebury Grain Storage Facility (Happy, Texas)

Old Esco Manufacturing (Greenville, Texas)

Where Is Our Electronics Recycling Bill??

The proper disposal of old electronics is an ever increasing problem as we continue to live in the information and digital age. New York City is currently trying to address this problem by passing one of the toughest electronics recycling programs in the country. We'll see how that turns out as currently the bill is facing a veto threat from Mayor Bloomberg (not very surprising).

The NYC Department of Sanitation (Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse, and Recycling) is also being called to action as they recently sent out a Request for Proposal to numerous consultants seeking a comprehensive analysis to understand how current generation and collection practices facilitate or hinder full recycling. Considering that I recently moved out of the Upper West Side ~ 3 months ago and my building didn't have fully recycling, well, I would tend to think the "hinder" part would be most applicable.

Just to help illustrate how big of a problem this is, The New York Times reported that "In 2005, consumers threw out as much as 2.2 million tons of electronics, 25,000 tons from New York alone." Increasingly consumers are looking to properly dispose of tires, paint, glass and other items. There are companies out there to help, which are just starting to be publicized - 1-800-Recycling for instance. This is all good news, although the fact still remains we are in dire need of a bill that would require electronics makers to take responsibility for their products once their useful lives are over, with the intent of encouraging companies to design products that are more recyclable.

Posted by Liz.

ENERGY: US Coal Exports on the rise, but what of Global Emissions Control?

The worldwide demand for coal coupled with the recent cancellation (see Jan 20, 2008 post) of many coal-fired power plants in the US has begun to drive US coal prices higher. The price for Appalachian and Wyoming coal rose 93% and 67%, respectively in the last year.

Most US utilities have long-term contracts with fixed pricing for coal. But the need for coal for utilities and steel manufacturing in developing countries (e.g., China and India) is rising. US exports rose from 5% of production in 2005 to 8% in 2006, and the trend is expected to continue. This means that sooner or later the US utilities will have to negotiate expiring contracts, the price will go up, and our utility bills will rise. Coal makes up 50% of US energy usage!

Like the discussion about global reduction of greenhouse gases, coal presents another situation where the developed world can try to preach to the developing world about becoming green (e.g., less coal-fired plants, etc.). But, the developing countries counter that we've contributed most to the current climate situation and we've had our industrial boom - why shouldn't they have theirs?

We have 27% of the world's coal reserves and we continue to sell it overseas. It makes 'green' a tough sell around the world.

CURRENT AFFAIRS: EPA Investigated for Spiking Key Panels with Industry Reps

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by John Dingell of Michigan (pictured left), will investigate the US EPA for possible conflicts of interest. The Committee sent a letter to the US EPA which states, the chair of an EPA external peer review panel, Dr. Deborah Rice, had been dismissed from her position after the American Chemistry Council complained Rice was not impartial because she had previously expressed concerns about the health effects of the chemical under review.

Meanwhile, the letter notes, at least nine EPA panels assessing the human health effects of toxic chemicals have included individuals alleged to have financial interests in the chemical industry.

Mr. Dingell said, “The EPA seems to have a backwards way of composing these panels. EPA is disallowing scientists who have valid public health concerns about products, while encouraging participation by so-called experts who are paid by the chemical industry.”

Green Branding....Companies Jumping on the Green Bandwagon

Companies have long been willing to pay a lot of money to attach their names to prominent places. The future home of the New York Mets in Queens will be called Citi Field, after Citigroup. The Academy Awards ceremony takes place at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles.
So at a time when most companies are scrambling for a prime seat on the green bandwagon, why not a company-branded wind farm?

John Deere Wind Energy is building an eight-turbine, 10-megawatt wind farm in Panhandle, Tex., that is scheduled to open in May.

Steelcase, the big furniture company in Grand Rapids, Mich., has committed to buying the farm’s entire output of renewable energy credits — the alternative energy version of carbon offsets, usually just called R.E.C.’s — for its first five years of operation. And it is paying a premium — it declines to say how much — for the right to name it the Wege Wind Energy Farm, after Peter Wege, the son of the founder of Steelcase and a prominent environmentalist in Michigan.

Nancy W. Hickey, the chief administrative officer of Steelcase, said both the name and the purchase fit in with Steelcase tradition. Steelcase is well on the way, she said, toward reaching its goal of reducing its carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2012, “and this is another way to help get us there.” Energy credits from the wind farm will offset the equivalent of 20 percent of the power used by Steelcase operations.

Ms. Hickey said the Wege name (pronounced WEGG-ee) is strongly associated with environmentalism, so the naming fits well with the Web-based “Green Giants Campaign” that the company initiated in January to draw attention to prominent environmentalists.
Even without the naming rights thrown in, it is unusual for a company other than a utility to buy all of the energy credits of a project before it is built. But environmental experts say such deals may become commonplace.

“The demand for wind power and for R.E.C.’s is outpacing the supply, so I won’t be surprised to see more companies trying to lock up the renewable energy credits that become available,” said Andrew Winston, an environmental consultant and co-author of “Green to Gold,” a book about environmental marketing.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, are hoping he is right. “After all, the best environmental policies are the ones where there’s a strong economic rationale for doing the right thing,” said Mark S. Brownstein, managing director for business partnerships for the Environmental Defense Fund.
The access to upfront money could also herald a new era for small wind farms, said Elizabeth Salerno, manager of policy analysis for the American Wind Energy Association. “This could really make more communities embrace local wind projects,” she said.

To read the full NY Times article, click here.

Posted by Liz.

CLIMATE: Arctic Melting Ice and Open Sea Channels

United Nations data show that temperatures in the arctic circle have increased twice as fast as the rest of the globe; that has led to shrinking ice sheet, i.e., 22% less in summer 2006 than in summer 2005.

As a result of this melting, large companies are preparing to benefit by the opening of sea channels near arctic circle; these companies are investing in the necessary reinforced vessels to take advantage of these openings.

These new sea channels will mean increased efficiency in delivering goods around the globe and therefore reduce the cost of some goods. A 11,000 mile trip will be reduced to 7,000 miles and will save over $800,000 in fuel and labor costs. Investment in reinforced vessels, needed to make these arctic journeys, continues to increase each year.

The number of Canadian arctic journeys increased from 78 in 2005 to 132 in 2006.

The dearth of resources for cleanup will undoubtedly contribute to ecological damage when the inevitable disaster ensues. Our oil, wheat, and mineral costs may come down, but at what price?

Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy

A recent survey by The Pew Research Center shows that the public continues to be conflicted in its overall approach toward energy and the environment. Here are some results of the survey:

1. When asked specifically about energy policy priorities, 55% favor more conservation and regulation of energy, compared with 35% who support expanded energy exploration.

2. Nine-in-ten Americans favor requiring better auto fuel efficiency standards, while substantial majorities also support increased federal funding for alternative energy (81%) and mass transportation (72%).

By contrast, there is greater division over other energy policies.

3. A majority (57%) favors increased federal funding on ethanol research, but support has fallen over the past two years (from 67% in February 2006).

4. The public continues to be almost evenly split over the idea of promoting more nuclear power (48% oppose vs. 44% favor). And a majority (53%) opposes giving tax cuts to energy companies to do more oil exploration.

5. About twice as many Republicans as Democrats favor drilling in ANWR (63% vs. 31%). Yet both parties are divided ideologically over drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge.

To view the full Pew survey, click here.

Posted by Liz.

California Cars to Get Global Warming Stickers

Go shopping in 2009 in California for a new car and you’ll notice some new information on the smog index window sticker. Next to the smog score will be a global warming score. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is putting the finishing touches on the program. You can see some of the details in the presentation from their last meeting.

According to CARB, approximately 13 states have thus far adopted the California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations, which requires the smog labels. At least eleven of those states, including New York, Connecticut, Oregon, and Washington are likely to adopt the new global warming labels.

Vehicles are assigned a score of 1 to 10 based upon their emissions, with 1 for the worst, and 10 for the lowest greenhouse gas emissions. However, calling it a “Global Warming Score” and having 10 be the best is likely to cause some confusion. Perhaps “Planet Saver Score” would be better?

Click here for the full article.

Posted by: Liz

CLIMATE: EPA boss justifies Clean Air Act waiver denial, and off to court we go!

EPA administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, finally issued his justification for denying California's Clean Air Act waiver (the denial is discussed in a 1/24/08 PNL Stories post). The denial was issued last December after California requested permission to pass tailpipe emissions standards stricter than federal guidelines.

Mr. Johnson, against the recommendations of his staff scientists, denied the request and stated that the new federal fuel efficiency standards, passed in December, were sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that there shouldn't be a patchwork of state's emissions standards.

EPA issued its long delayed 47-page report in the Federal Register, and that clears the way for California and 18 other state to proceed with a lawsuit in federal court to fight the denial.

Administrator Johnson wrote: "While I find that the conditions related to global climate change in California are substantial, they are not sufficiently different from conditions in the nation as a whole to justify separate state standards."

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown dismissed Johnson's arguments as "obfuscating, sabotaging . . . specious, ill-founded. . . . We're going to fight him until he's sent packing by the next president." State regulators argue that by 2020 California's law would achieve twice the reduction as the federal fuel standards.

A document was released Tuesday by Senator Barbara Boxer who wants the denial reversed. She said the draft (written in conjunction with former administrator William K. Reilly), as well as internal agency e-mail messages she released, demonstrated that the E.P.A. was “in crisis.” Mr. Johnson’s decisions, she said, “went against the professional scientists and the professional legal experts.”