Search

The article informs that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has released for public comment a document that aims to clarify the proposed rule, dubbed "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science." It mentions that EPA uses pollution exposure data that includes people's locations and mentions that the tiered access system, modeled on a program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), give greater access to researchers.

The article discusses the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the U.S. government's decision to allow BP to inject chemical oil dispersants near the leaking wellhead, and the opinions of various scientists on the effectiveness and possible environmental impacts associated with use of the dispersants. The article attributes the dispersant injection idea to former Exxon-Mobil scientist Gerard Canevari. Conference calls and meetings involving the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and various scientists are noted. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson is cited regarding EPA's agreement to the decision to use dispersants.

The article discusses U.S. president Barack Obama's moves to revitalize Chesapeake Bay restoration project. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. and cleanup efforts have been stalled for years. The revitalization will be directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will require efforts from various industries such as agriculture to help reach restoration goals set forth in 1987 as part of a state-federal partnership. Topics include a brief overview of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the exercise of EPA authority under the Clean Water Act, and the environmental impact of continuous development along the bay. Also included are several key measures of recovery such as dissolved oxygen content, water clarity, and chlorophyll a concentration.

The article reports on the struggle of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state regulators and the electric power industry to come to grips with the impact of a surprise court decision of dismantling the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The regulation was accordingly designed to fix a problem that many East Coast states are facing such as so much pollution blows in from other states that they can't meet EPA standards for air quality, report said. According to the author, CAIR would have capped the amount of pollution in the entire region and issued allowances to each state which represents units of pollution. It is said that power companies had already started buying and selling these allowances, which are said to provide financial incentive to clean up their power plants.

The article elaborates on the modifications made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its database on chemical hazards that influences how chemicals are regulated in the U.S. Such a move would make the process more transparent, more rigorous and speedier. According to critics, the new procedure is more secretive and gives too much clout to federal agencies that pollute or face massive cleanup costs, thus bringing further delays in regulation. The procedure started in 1985 when the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains EPA scientists' appraisals of the chronic health effects of more than 540 chemicals. In 2005, Stephen Johnson, EPA administrator, asked his Office of Research and Development (ORD) to make the process more predictable and transparent.

The article reports on a new regulation that recommends the use of a watershed approach and requires enforceable, ecologically-based performance standards in order to improve the track record of mitigation. The new rule set by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council which was prompted by the Congress, are said to replace the past wetland policies including the no net loss of wetlands imposed by 1989 U.S. President George H.W. Bush and by other environmentalist groups which were regarded as inefficient. The new rule extends mitigation policies to streams and standardizes requirements for all types of mitigation and strengthens long-term protection of sites. It is also issued by the agency together with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The article reports on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) adjustment of a smog standard to White House preference. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the standards for six major pollutants including soot and ozone. Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the EPA tightened the secondary standard which is intended to protect "human welfare," a broadly defined phrase in the Clean Air Act that includes effects on soil, vegetation, visibility and property. The measurement of the secondary and primary standard for ozone is described.

The article informs that the chemicals that make life easier by keeping food from sticking to cookware and blocking stains to carpets and couches also have a darker side as some of their ingredients don't break down in nature. Last month, the firm DuPont, the largest manufacturer of perfluorocarboxylates, agreed to spend $5 million to assess one aspect of the possible risk of exposure. It's part of a record $16.5 million settlement reached last month with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had accused the company of breaking the law by not releasing health information about perfluorooctanoic acid, a perfluorocarboxylate used to make some Teflon products. DuPont has denied any wrongdoing. While welcoming the research, which will involve nine representative DuPont products, some researchers are frustrated by EPA's ground rules. They are particularly upset that the identity of the products to be tested will be kept secret, a decision they say could reduce confidence in the findings and hinder other research into the chemicals.

This article reports on environmentalism in the U.S. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed such a cap-and-trade system last year, it argued that it was the most effective way to cut back the 48 tons of mercury, a known neurotoxin, emitted nationwide each year. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for about 40% of all mercury emissions in the U.S., making them the largest single source. No federal rules on mercury from power plants are in place yet, although EPA determined in 2000 that regulation was appropriate and necessary.

When Christine Todd Whitman resigned as administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on third week of May 2003 she faced a barrage of criticism. Environmental groups said that under her tenure the agency had weakened environmental laws and regulations. Whitman tends to receive higher marks for EPA science under her tenure. A moderate Republican, Whitman came to the agency with a track record of improving New Jersey's environment while governor. During her 2.5 years at EPA Whitman began to strengthen research and boost its role in decision-making.

The article discusses a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the need to protect ephemeral water bodies such as streams, ponds, swamps, and wetlands. The report establishes the link between ephemeral water bodies and larger navigable waterways. It is anticipated that the report will force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 2006 ruling that ephemeral water bodies are not covered by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The article discusses legislative bills being considered in the U.S. Congress that would widen the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain chemical test and safety data from U.S. companies. The Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison is cited regarding the change the proposed legislation would bring.

The article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is focusing on the effect of pharmaceuticals and personal care products that are flushed down the toilet. EPA looks at its health and environmental impact by asking for public comment on the agency's plan of collecting data from hospitals. It is cited that the agency asked the U.S. National Academies to run a workshop in December, discussing the means of assessing the risk to human health when the drugs get into drinking water. According to G. Allen Burto, a scientist from Wright State University, the chemicals have a significant impact to health.

The article reports on a congressional oversight committee's investigation of how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency manages potential conflict of interests among scientists who review its health assessments. The inquiry stems from the dismissal of Deborah Rice as chair of a panel reviewing an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health assessment of decabromodiphenyl ether and other products. The House Energy and Commerce Committee asked EPA for documents relating to Rice's dismissal and records on nine scientists on current or past review panels who either work for companies or have received money from them.

The article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has overhauled its lengthy process of updating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which have far-reaching impacts on many regulations. The Clean Air Act mandates that EPA set the ambient air quality standards according to the best available science and review them every five years. Lead is the first of the six pollutants covered under NAAQS to go through the new procedure. More discouraging to Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee was the inclusion of the option of removing lead from the list of NAAQS pollutants, which the agency had previously floated.

Information about the voluntary measures to tackle climate change discussed at an international meeting in Washington, D.C. is presented. The report found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacks a system for determining whether its 54 voluntary programs are improving the environment. EPA associate administrator Brian Mannix agreed that stronger management is needed to handle the programs.

The article reports on the first national study of air pollutants from dairy cow, swine and poultry farms launched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Researchers will measure emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and other gases from livestock farms in nine states across the country. The agency will then create a model to enable individual operations to check whether they need a permit. However, some environmentalists opposes the study because for them it is not comprehensive and may underestimate emissions.

The article presents information related to the change in process of reviewing health standards for six of the most widespread and dangerous air pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The decision was announced by officials of EPA in the first week of December 2006. According to the officials the decision is designed to speed the notoriously slow process of revising these standards. National Ambient Air Quality Standards of EPA have enormous consequences, influencing the regulation of vehicles, industry, and agriculture in many ways. Barbara Boxer, Democratic Senator from California and new chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said that the changed review process is a dangerous turn.

The article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently announced that it is considering removing a standard requiring that levels of airborne lead not exceed 1.5 &#x00B5/m3. EPA has not revised the standard since 1978. EPA was sued by lawyers representing residents near a Missouri smelter in 2004 for not revising the standard. It lost the court battle last year and now faces a 2008 deadline for updating the standard. In a document released recently EPA said that no such standard is needed as lead pollution has dramatically declined after reducing the lead in gasoline.

This article reports that activists are criticizing a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to speed up its regular review of air-quality standards. By law, EPA must revisit its National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years. Staff scientists evaluate the latest research and propose ranges for new standards, which are then reviewed by the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Because EPA regularly misses its deadline and gets sued, an internal EPA committee proposed several suggestions in for speeding up the process. EPA chief scientist George Gray said that the idea behind this proposal is not to have the policy drive the science.

The article reports on a new advisory board in the U.S. concluding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use nine studies in which humans were intentionally dosed with pesticides in its decisions about reregulating the chemicals. Activists have complained for years about the ethics of intentional-dosing studies. In 2004, a report by a National Academies' National Research Council panel called for the review board. EPA's Human Studies Review Board was charged by the agency with examining 11 studies for scientific merit and whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the research was intended to seriously harm participants or purposely failed to obtain informed consent.

The article focuses on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is planning to loosen reporting rules for chemicals on its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) list. Under EPA regulations, companies must tell the agency every year how much of 666 chemicals on the TRI they release to the environment. Under a revised rule, EPA will increase the reporting thresholds and only require reports every 2 years. Those changes will make it harder for the public to track dangerous chemicals, argues the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in Washington, D.C., including five chemicals EWG says, by EPA's own rules, should be subject to even stricter reporting thresholds.

The article informs that critics of revision to air pollution standards, proposed last month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), say the new daily threshold will only marginally improve public health. In fact, an outside panel that made such a recommendation is not happy with EPA's decision. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson did not answer that question during a 20 December teleconference announcing the standards but said he had thought long and hard about the data. Studies have shown that inhaling the small particles that make up soot, a widespread byproduct of combustion, harms health, although the mechanisms are not all clear. In 1997, the EPA first regulated fine particles measuring 2.5 micrometers or less. As part of a settlement in a suit brought by the American Lung Association, EPA was required to propose revised PM 2.5 rules by the end of 2005. Such a reduction could make a big difference in public health, scientists have found. The EPA models for nine major U.S. cities predict that the tightest daily and annual standards recommended by CASAC would cut the roughly 4700 deaths due each year to PM 2.5 in those cities by 48%.

This article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week released a draft rule for considering toxicity studies in which volunteers are intentionally dosed with pesticides. In July, lawmakers criticized an early version of the rules as ethically lax, and a spending bill ordered the agency to modify the rules. The new rule, if adopted, would bar the use of any dosing studies of pregnant women or children and create a Human Studies Review Board to vet research proposals. CropLife America, a pesticide trade group, welcomed the rule, but Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington D.C., worries that it won't bar studies in which children are exposed to pesticides, such as CHEERS, which EPA spiked in April due to congressional concerns.

This article reports that the U.S. Congress has forbidden the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from accepting any toxicity studies in which people were intentionally exposed to pesticides until EPA issues a final rule spelling out its policies. The legislators said draft rules released by EPA last month. The restriction was part of a spending bill finalized last week.

The article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its first regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the largest source of mercury pollution in the U.S. The controversial regulation would allow power companies to trade pollution credits, an approach that EPA claims will cut emissions by 70% by 2018. Environmentalists say that faster, better progress could be made by mandating industry-wide reductions. They also argue that the Clean Air Act prohibits trading of hazardous pollutants such as mercury.

The article reports that U.S. President George W. Bush chose Stephen Johnson to replace Michael Leavitt as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Johnson, who holds a master's degree in pathology, would be the first administrator with scientific training. Those pleased by the decision include the Environmental Working Croup and a pesticide trade group called CropLife America, both based in Washington, D.C.

This article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asked experts to help it assess the health dangers of a common chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOA and related chemicals are used to make nonstick and stain-resistant coatings, including Teflon. EPA officials trying to assess PFOA's risks also face a host of technical issues, says Charles Auer, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, including how to compare blood levels in humans and animals.

This article reports that a new report on the health effects of the chemical perchlorate is stirring the waters on this controversial pollutant from rocket fuel the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study, released this week, found that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2002 draft risk assessment of safe daily oral intake was roughly 20 times too stringent — a figure that's prompting dissent on both ends of the spectrum. Both EPA and the states will likely consider the NAS report when finalizing drinking-water standards in the coming years, says endocrinologist Thomas Zoeller of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Another big unknown is how much perchlorate infants ingest through food and milk.

This article reports that last month researchers have begun recruiting in Florida for a $7 million study of how children age 3 and younger are exposed to indoor pesticides and several other household chemicals. Although many studies have looked at occupational exposure to pesticides and other chemicals, little is known about how pesticides get into children's bodies. Parents will track what their children eat and how active they are, while also keeping track of the pesticides used in the house. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency originally planned to study only pesticides, but last month it received a $2 million contribution from the American Chemistry Council to add several other kinds of common household chemicals, including flame retardants, perfluorinated chemicals, and ingredients in plastic products.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is bracing for budget cuts in its in-house and extramural science programs. Last week a spending panel of the U.S. Senate cut $60 million from 2004 request of EPA. The budget crunch could worsen when the Senate negotiates final budget numbers with the U.S. House, because both bodies have proposed millions of dollars in special projects not requested by the agency.

The Draft Report on the Environment released on 23 June sums up the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) view of the most solid scientific measurements of environmental quality across the country. Similar to a study issued last year by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, the draft report identifies "indicators" that can be used to gauge nationwide trends in environmental quality. Like the Heinz study, the EPA report concludes that that data for many indicators aren't available for the entire nation or are limited in time. According to an internal EPA white paper obtained by the National Wildlife Federation, the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget made major edits to a section of the report dealing with climate change.