Tag Archives: EPA

Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

The Gulf is Not the Only Place Experiencing an Oil Spill: UPDATE

Posted on by

[Updated with video]

With eyes and media attention still focused on the Gulf of Mexico and the largest oil spill in U.S. history, it’s no wonder little attention has been paid to, what some are calling, possibly the largest oil spill in the Midwest.

A 30-inch pipeline burst earlier this week and spilled some 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River, which flows into the enormous Lake Michigan. The spill has reached 35 miles of the river and left animals and plants in and along the river coated with oil.

The owner of the pipeline, Enbridge Energy Partners, responded to the leak by placing 28,000 feet of boom and more than 300 clean-up workers at the site. Governor Jennifer M. Granholm criticized Enbridge officials, however, claiming there are too few workers on site for the size of the spill and that the oil had reached farther than previously known.

Other officials also questioned Enbridge’s response. Representative Mark Schauer, a Michigan Democrat, said he was angry that it took Enbridge several hours on Monday to report the leak after it was discovered. He said he feared that the leak may have started earlier on Sunday and that the amount of oil in the river could be much more than the company’s estimate.

The Environmental Protection Agency is involved and recently released a statement that the spill may have exceeded one million gallons. With Lake Michigan only 80 miles downstream from the spill, many are fearing the worst, including Gov. Granholm.

Granholm warned of a “tragedy of historic proportions” if the oil reaches Lake Michigan. “The last thing any of us want to see is a smaller version of what has happened in the Gulf,” Granholm said Wednesday. “From my perspective the response has been anemic.”

Enbridge’s President and CEO Patrick D. Daniel has taken responsibility for the spill, claiming, “This is our mess. We’re going to clean it up.” Hopefully that happens before the oil spreads to the Great Lakes.

Here’s a video of yet another oil disaster:

The FDA and Food Fraud

Posted on by

In our April issue (which will be available online tomorrow available now), we feature an article about how the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is ramping up its enforcement efforts of late. Our May issue will discuss how OSHA is doing the same. And this post last week talks about how the EPA is planning to re-new its mission to safeguarding the nation’s drinking water.

Will the FDA be the next watchdog to flex its muscle?

Some think it should, specifically when it comes to “food fraud.”

Increasingly, companies, retailers and consumers are pressuring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to act on the rising incidence of food fraud, the Washington Post reports.

Examples of food being mislabeled abound: “sheep’s milk” cheese really being made from cow’s milk; “Sturgeon caviar” being Mississippi paddlefish; grouper, red snapper and flounder actually catfish fillets from Vietnam; and honey diluted with sugar beets or corn syrup sold as 100 percent pure.

This type of “food fraud” has been found in fish, fruit juice, maple syrup, olive oil, spices, spirits, vinegar and wine. Those affected by the fraud include consumers and companies such as E&J Gallo and Heinz USA.

Rhetorically, the FDA definitely wants to increase its ability to monitor such violations, but the past few years have seen so many incidents of rampant — and at times deadly — food quality issues that the regulator has instead focused on that side of things.

And rightly so. I mean, look at this list of recalls in just November 2009 alone.

Still, one issue being more troubling doesn’t mean that the other one isn’t also a threat.

“We put so much emphasis on food and purity of ingredients and where they come from,” said Mark Stoeckle, a physician and DNA expert at Rockefeller University. “But then there are things selling that are not what they say on the label. There’s an important issue here in terms of economics and consumer safety.”

The CPSC and OSHA have both needed more funding and resources to expand their mission. Does the FDA deserve the same? In a vacuum, of course. And food fraud has the potential to cause some very serious health and safety problems.

But in a still-shaky economy and with a new, historic commitment to health care, can every agency in Washington really expect to get a higher budget?

maple syrup tootbrush

Brushing your teeth has never been so delicious … Hey! Wait! That’s not tooth paste.

EPA Aims to Strengthen Drinking Water Regulations

Posted on by

Obviously, EPA chief Lisa Jackson has been reading the Risk Management Monitor.

Because yesterday, just on the heels of some extensive coverage by us on water quality concerns (this one last week from Emily and this post yesterday from me), the EPA announced a major shift in how it will regulate the nation’s drinking water, focusing specifically on protecting people from the potentially harmful chemicals that have become increasingly prevalent in recent decades.

EPA’s current approach to protecting drinking water involves assessing each individual contaminant, which can take many years, according to the agency. The new strategy seeks to achieve protections more quickly and cost-effectively with strategies like advanced treatment technologies that address several pollutants at once.

Additionally, Jackson said, the agency plans to use programs in tandem to address water pollution, rather than view them in so-called silos. Jackson said EPA can use the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which regulates pesticides, as well as the Toxic Substances Control Act to assess the risk of chemicals and stop contaminants before they get into drinking water.

Jackson broke down the new strategy at the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies’ annual conference.

The strategy, Jackson said, contains four key components: addressing contaminants in groups rather than individually, fostering the development of new treatment technologies, using multiple statutes to safeguard water supplies, and enhancing state and local partnerships.

In its official release, the EPA went into even more depth, identifying several substances that would now be put under more scrutiny through regulations.

In the newly finalized review of existing drinking water standards, EPA determined that scientific advances allow for stricter regulations for the carcinogenic compounds tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, acrylamide and epichlorohydrin. Tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene are used in industrial and/or textile processing and can be introduced into drinking water from contaminated ground or surface water sources. Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are impurities that can be introduced into drinking water during the water treatment process. Within the next year, EPA will initiate rulemaking efforts to revise the tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene standards using the strategy’s framework.

Of course, nothing has changed yet legally and until the environmental watchdog actually does “initiate rulemaking efforts,” the status quo will remain the status quo.

Notes the New York Times:

Until new policies and rules are unveiled, it is difficult to say precisely how these shifts will affect Americans. Some within the E.P.A. and Congress remain skeptical.

“There is a history of this agency making big announcements, and then changing very little,” said an agency regulator who was not authorized to speak to the media. “The real test will be to see how many new chemicals have been regulated six months from now.”

Currently, only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, though more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States. No chemicals have been added to that list since 2000.

Rhetorically, it’s a good start. We will see how long it takes to actually make any difference.

And, as evidenced by the graphic below (found at I Love Charts), there isn’t a lot of time — or water — left to waste.

global water supply