Search

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.

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 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 focuses on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency accepts data from controversial studies that deliberately dose human volunteers with pesticides. EPA stopped considering such data in December 2001, after the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group challenged them as unethical. A review by the National Academy of Sciences recommended that EPA accept the results of certain human tests if they met strict scientific and ethical criteria. Meanwhile, CropLife America, a Washington D.C.-based industry trade group, had sued EPA arguing that the moratorium was illegal, and in 2003 a judge agreed.