Environmental Protection Agency

RECENT POSTS

June 9, 2011 | 3:02 PM | By

Zapping garden pests with nanotech? Not so fast, says the EPA.

Nanotechnology is often hailed as the greatest technological advance since the chemical revolution. Super strong bike frames? Nano can do that. Odor-free socks? Nano does it. Disappearing sun screen? Nano’s the solution. But nanotech bug killer? Slow down, says the EPA in a press release today.

Brookhaven National Laboratory

nanomolecules on graphene

Nanotechnology- the technology that lets engineers manufacture materials 100,000 smaller than a human hair- hit the marketplace in a big way in the last five years. It holds amazing promise for everything from the creation of super-efficient solar panels to “nano-goo” that can clean up toxic waste. In it’s sweeping report on nanotechnology, the Natural Resources Defence Council claims that nanotechnology is already deployed in everyday products from mascara to tennis balls to baby wipes, with little regulation. In other words, this technological horse has long since left the barn.  So why is the EPA stepping in to regulate nanotechnology now? And on pesticides? Are they tiptoeing into  this new regulatory frontier by going after low hanging fruit? And if EPA is concerned about bug killers, should they also look at the host of other everyday products that now contain nanomaterials?

The EPA says they “will gather information on what nanoscale materials are present in pesticide products to determine whether the registration of a pesticide may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health.” They follow with a reassurance to industry ,“The agency will continue to encourage responsible and innovative development of products containing nanoscale materials….”

Here’s a primer on nanotechnology from the folks at KQED:


QUEST on KQED Public Media.

FILED UNDER: Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, epa, nano, nanomaterials, nanosilver, nanotech, nanotechnology, Oregon Field Journal, pesticides
June 6, 2011 | 2:59 PM | By

Portland gets $1.4 million for polluted sites

The Environmental Protection Agency is distributing $76 million in funding for clean-up and redevelopment of contaminated Brownfield sites across the country. The city of Portland is getting $1 million of that money to improve sites contaminated with petroleum and other hazardous waste in east Portland. The EPA says the clean-up funds will reduce contaminants washing into local watersheds while also offering an economic boost to a growing but impoverished Portland community.

Of the funds coming to Portland, $400,000 in grants will go toward nine site assessments focused on east Portland. Another $1 million in grants will go into a loan fund, from which the city will give one loan and one sub-grant each for petroleum and hazardous waste cleanups. The grants will also be used to develop cleanup plans and to do community outreach.

Leaders from the EPA and the city of Portland will be discussing the funding award at the June Key Delta Community Center in Portland tomorrow morning at 10 (I’ll post relevant updates, like what sites exactly will benefit from the funds).  Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Land, Brownfields, Environmental Protection Agency
February 9, 2011 | 2:45 PM | By

Lisa Jackson: 10 reasons not to gut the Clean Air Act

Chesabayprogram/Flickr

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson

Republicans have proposals in both the House and the Senate to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) has proposed the House Energy Tax Prevention Act. His logic centers around the costs of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations on American businesses, workers and energy consumers: “To protect jobs and fortify our energy security, we should be working to bring more power online, not shutting plants down,” he said in a statement. “We are woefully unprepared to meet our nation’s growing energy demands, yet this administration’s ‘none of the above’ energy policy will do nothing but cost jobs, make energy more expensive, and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy.”

Today, Jackson responded to Upton’s bill in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power, saying: “The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken, or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public. I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.”

Jackson argues the Clean Air Act provides society with some quantifiable benefits (Note: she may not be responding directly to Upton’s bill with all of these perks. In fact, Republicans at the hearing pressed her to admit the bill in question wouldn’t affect other regulated air pollutants.). Here’s a list of 10 reasons she says Congress should keep the Clean Air Act (and the EPA’s enforcement of it) intact: Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Climate change, Environmental Protection Agency, GOP in the House, greenhouse gases, Lisa Jackson
February 2, 2011 | 12:37 PM | By

House Republicans vs. EPA on greenhouse gases

We’re waiting on this anticipated newsmaker today: Anonymous officials tipped off the press to the House Republicans’ plan to introduce a bill that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. From the AP:

“The officials said the bill would nullify all of the steps the EPA has taken to date on the issue, including a threshold finding that greenhouse gases constitute a danger to the public health and welfare.

In addition, it seeks to strip the agency of its authority to use the law in any future attempts to crack down on the emissions from factories, utilities and other stationary sources. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Climate change, Environmental Protection Agency, GOP in the House, greenhouse gases
January 12, 2011 | 3:27 PM | By

Portland Water Bureau to test for chromium-6

gfrphoto/Flickr

An environmental advocacy group tested tap water in Bend and found hexavalent chromium, a natural mineral and manufacturing byproduct that the EPA says "is likely carcinogenic in humans" though utilities are not specifically required to test for it in the water supply.

The Portland Water Bureau has sent out a response to the Environmental Working Group’s tests showing hexavalent chromium in drinking water across the country to reassure its customers that Portland water is safe to drink. The bureau says it will follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s new recommendations for how utilities can monitor the probable carcinogen and let customers know how much of it is in their drinking water.

Portland’s drinking water comes from the protected Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield watersheds, and the Portland Water Bureau tests Bull Run water for total chromium three times a year. Since 2000, 30 of 33 samples from Bull Run have shown no trace of chromium. The highest level detected was 3 parts per billion, which is more than 30 times below the federal limit for total chromium.

Note, however, that’s total chromium.

Hexavalent chromium is one of two key types of chromium that can be found in drinking water. Trivalent chromium is another kind, and it can actually have beneficial health effects. Hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, is carcinogenic when inhaled, and the EPA has said it is a “likely carcinogen” when ingested. But the EPA doesn’t have specific drinking water limits for chromium-6 yet, so water utilities are not required to test for it. New standards for how much chromium-6 is safe to drink are still underway, but in the meantime, the Portland Water Bureau says it is developing a testing plan that will meet the EPA’s latest recommendations.

Any word from your utility on how they handle chromium-6? I’d be interested to hear about any new action on hexavalent chromium at other utilities around the state.

FILED UNDER: Water, Environmental Protection Agency, Hexavalent chromium, Portland Water Bureau
January 12, 2011 | 12:44 PM | By

Biomass cleared from new greenhouse gas rules (for now)

PJ Peterson/Flickr

The Environmental Protection Agency has exempted biomass facilities – including those that would use logging slash and wood debris for energy – from its new greenhouse gas tailoring rules for three years while it studies how the related carbon dioxide emissions should be permitted.

The Environmental Protection Agency has changed its tune on regulating greenhouse gases from biomass. Today, the agency announced it is is leaving biomass-fired and other biogenic energy sources out of its greenhouse gas regulations for three years while the agency studies how to treat the related emissions. The new rule exempts facilities that burn wood, crops, manure, sewage, landfill gas and ethanol to make energy.

Northwest leaders are celebrating after months of griping about the EPA’s initial plan to treat biomass like fossil fuels in permitting the carbon dioxide emissions. Oregon’s congressional delegation sent letters in June and December arguing biomass should be considered a renewable energy source and should be exempt from the EPA greenhouse gas rules that kicked in this year.

“This is great news after a tremendous bipartisan effort in pushing the EPA to finally acknowledge that woody biomass is different than coal,” said U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). “This will allow a number of projects to move forward in hard hit Southern Oregon and other rural areas of the state. These projects will create needed jobs and clean renewable energy from biomass. I am very pleased that the federal bureaucrats finally got out of the way and are allowing us to do something that makes an awful lot of sense.” Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Agriculture, Forestry, Renewable energy, Biomass, Carbon dioxide, Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gases
January 5, 2011 | 10:38 AM | By

EPA approves pollution limits for Klamath River

Thirteen years after settling a lawsuit with environmental groups over pollution in California rivers, the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a clean-up plan for the troubled Klamath River.

The Klamath carries both “wild and scenic” and “impaired” federal designations, and it’s the lifeblood for the third-largest run of salmon on the West Coast. Fishermen, tribes, farmers and four PacifiCorp dams rely on its extensive watershed, which covers 12,600 square miles across southern Oregon and northern California.

The EPA’s move this week seals California’s plan for cleaning up the river, which includes a 57 percent reduction of phosphorous and a 32 percent cut in nitrogen from the river – two pollutants that come from agricultural runoff – as well as annual reductions from the river’s reservoirs.

Tribes, environmental groups and fishermen say the plan is long overdue, but PacifiCorps and agricultural groups have opposed it. One power company official called it “inappropriate and unacheivable.” The plan will need funding for implementation. Oregon’s clean-up plan for the Klamath is next in line. It has been developed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the EPA is expected to approve that plan later this month.

FILED UNDER: Water, Environmental Protection Agency, Klamath River
December 22, 2010 | 10:01 AM | By

EPA planning new climate rules times two

POLITICO reports the Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to a schedule for new regulations of greenhouse gases – in addition to the ones slated to kick in Jan. 2.

The new rules would go a step beyond the regulations of large sources of greenhouse gases kicking in next month. Those rules only apply to new and upgraded facilities and limits will be set case by case while the additional standards, now planned for final action by 2012, would set targets for individual industries and could require older facilities to control carbon dioxide emissions.

From POLITICO:

“Under the schedule agreed to by EPA, states and environmental groups, the agency will issue a draft greenhouse gas performance standard for power plants by July 2011 and a final rule by May 2012. The agreement – which comes after states and environmentalists challenged the George W. Bush administration’s failure to set the standards – requires EPA to issue a draft limit for refineries by Dec. 2011 and a final rule by Nov. 2012. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Climate change, Environmental Protection Agency, GOP in the House
December 21, 2010 | 3:40 PM | By

EPA responds to chromium-6 study

The Environmental Protection Agency just sent out this statement on its standards for chromium in drinking water. The Environmental Working Group is pressuring the agency to tighten its standards for a specific kind of chromium, chromium-6 or hexavalent chromium, which can have negative health impacts if ingested. From the EPA:

“EPA absolutely has a drinking water standard for total chromium, which includes chromium-6 (also known as Hexavalent Chromium), and we require water systems to test for it. This standard is based on the best available science and is enforceable by law. Ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans is a top priority for EPA. The agency regularly re-evaluates drinking water standards and, based on new science on chromium-6, had already begun a rigorous and comprehensive review of its health effects. In September, we released a draft of that scientific review for public comment. When this human health assessment is finalized in 2011, EPA will carefully review the conclusions and consider all relevant information, including the Environmental Working Group’s study, to determine if a new standard needs to be set.”

Background, also from the EPA: Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Water, Environmental Protection Agency, Hexavalent chromium
December 20, 2010 | 4:59 PM | By

In Bend: Paging Erin Brockovich?

gfrphoto/Flickr

An environmental advocacy group tested tap water in Bend and found hexavalent chromium, a natural mineral and manufacturing byproduct that the EPA says "is likely carcinogenic in humans," though utilities are not specifically required to test for it in the water supply.

How much hexavalent chromium is too much when it’s in your drinking water?

That is one of many  questions lingering in the wake of The Environmental Working Group’s report on carcinogenic chromium in tap water across the country. Water samples taken by volunteers showed 31 of 35 cities tested had more hexavalent chromium in their tap water than the proposed legal limit in California.

The Environmental Protection Agency says hexavalent chromium is definitely a carcinogen when inhaled, but it is still reviewing how dangerous it is when ingested, as it is in drinking water.

A draft review this year concluded orally ingested hexavalent chromium is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on science showing ingestion increased the risk of gastrointestinal tumors in laboratory rats and mice, evidence tying oral exposure to stomach cancer in humans, and tests indicating that chromium can damage DNA.

There are two well-known types of chromium that can be found in drinking water; hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6 is the more dangerous of the two (chromium-3 can actually have health benefits). It can find its way into drinking water through erosion of natural sources and through discharges from manufacturers of stainless steel, metal plating, wood products and textiles. A reverse osmosis filtration system will remove the contaminant. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Water, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Working Group, Hexavalent chromium