Friday, September 19, 2008

This is it!

Yarrrrr! Good morning, Scurvy Wenches!

My interview is today (*w00t*!). I finished my writing sample, but have no idea where to email it. The Admin.Asst. was supposed to send me a confirmation email, but I never got it. I called yesterday afternoon, but she didn't call back. I shall try again this morning.

I'll be heading out around noon, looking all spiffy in my suit. After the interview, I plan on coming home, having a drink, and watching the entire season of So NoTORIous on DVD. Tell me I don't know how to have a rockin' Friday night. Go on. Try it.

Now, for your reading pleasure, here is the final draft of my writing sample (slightly edited). Enjoy!


Short Discussion of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act [73 FR 44353]

On July 30, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act in response to the 2007 United States' Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases (GHG) meet the definition of “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This ruling gives EPA the regulatory authority to determine whether tailpipe GHG emissions from new motor vehicles endanger public health or welfare. EPA has extrapolated upon this ruling by announcing its intention to regulate all GHG emissions from both stationary and mobile sources under the CAA. EPA's decision demonstrates two over-arching and related points. For the conspiracy-minded, the intention of the EPA in publishing this massive Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPR) is to bog down the GHG regulatory process in red tape. Second, this recent ANPR serves as an example of how top-down command-and-control regulatory action is not always the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions. However, the focus of this short discussion is not conspiracy theories nor the inefficiencies of the command-and-control regulatory process, but rather on a more practical question: How could this proposed rulemaking benefit the members of the [organization where I'm interviewing]?

As the [organization] consists of companies which manufacture air pollution and control equipment for stationary sources, this regulation could translate into increased opportunities for business growth and development. One pathway through which this may be achieved is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which requires some stationary sources of regulated air pollutants to apply for PSD permits and reduce their emissions of those pollutants using the best available control technology (BACT). BACT is defined as “the maximum achievable degree of emissions reduction for a given pollutant (determined by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis), taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts. BACT may include add-on controls, but also includes application of inherently lower-polluting production processes and other available methods and techniques for control” (73 FR 44497). Furthermore, the program contains a mechanism to stimulate development and innovation by requiring stationary sources to consider the latest best available control technologies.

According to the ANPR, GHG emissions are not currently subject to the provisions of the PSD program. However, EPA states in this ruling that controlling any GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, under other parts of the CAA would also make parts of the PSD program applicable (73 FR 44420). The ANPR goes on to state that “because CO2 is typically emitted in much larger quantities relative to traditional air pollutants, CAA regulation of CO2 would potentially extend PSD requirements to many stationary sources not previously subject to the PSD program, including large buildings heated by natural gas or oil, and add new PSD requirements to sources already subject to the program” (73 FR 44399).

If this regulation is ever promulgated as a final rule, an increase in regulated stationary sources, combined with the opportunity to continue developing innovative control technologies translates into greater growth opportunities for the member companies of the [organization]. Thus, it would be in the best interests of the members of [the organization] to provide EPA with constructive comments and relevant data in support of this ANPR.

OK! HIRE ME! Considering I read the 200 page Federal Register notice and wrote the sample in about 2 days, I think it's pretty good.

*smooches*

11 comments:

  1. I thought I was the only one who LOVED So noTORIous! The sample looks good, bunch of luck on your interview today!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are so hired.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You just blinded me with science!

    Tell them I said to BRING IT.

    Luck-

    ReplyDelete
  4. anne marie in philly12:43 PM

    excuse me, but could you restate that in English, please?

    (just pulling your chain)

    LOL :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gah! Well, that was lovely.

    Do please let us know how the interview goes. You do have a rockin' Friday planned. Enjoy yourself, dear.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whoo hoo! Now I have something to help me sleep at night. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK so I just fell asleep reading that.

    I am sure it was perfect, but I snoozed.

    peace
    #2

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good luck! *crosses fingers for you*

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great writing, you got the job in my opinion! Just be warned... CEMS isn't just a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, but a Career Ending Move, Stupid. (I can say that because I've been in the CEMS/DAHS, or the monitoring part of air, for 8 years now... and have no idea where to go next...)
    Good luck and get that job!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, you blonds and your silly chatter.

    ReplyDelete