FreshAire Solutions of SWFL

An indoor Air Quality Company 

[fasswfl]

Carbon Dioxide Detected in Deserts

The world's deserts may be storing some of the climate-changing carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, a new study suggests. Massive aquifers underneath deserts could hold more carbon than all the plants on land, according to the new research.

www.freshairesolutions.net #clean#air

[stinglikeabey]

“People look at you and say ‘you changed’, as if you worked that hard to stay the same”

- Jay Z (via stinglikeabey)

[fasswfl]

10 tips for simple clean-up to improve indoor air quality

Keep Walkway and Entries Clean – Start by keeping outside sidewalks, entry areas, porches and steps clean. Sweep, dust, vacuum or use a leaf blower to remove soil and debris from entries to eliminate tracking into the facility.

Use Mats to Trap Soil at Entries – Outside and interior mats to trap and contain particles and moisture should be placed at each entry. This not only extends the life of carpet, it greatly reduces the quantity of particles that enter and build up within traffic areas, eventually becoming airborne.

Clean Shoes at Entries – Studies conducted by professional engineers on carpet dust samples indicate that fine particles containing lead are reduced by cleaning or removing and leaving shoes at the entry.

Purchase and Use High Quality Vacuum Equipment – A quality, durable upright vacuum with brush agitation is a must. Price is not as important as quality. Check trade or consumer magazines and expect sales persons to provide technically accurate information. Also, check the Carpet and Rug Institute’s list of vacuums that qualify for the Green Label Program at www.carpet-rug.org.

Use High Efficiency Vacuum Filter Bag – Using high-efficiency double-lined vacuum filter bags can filter out 99 percent of particles down to one micron or less in size. Avoid cheap paper filter bags that remove particles down to seven microns only. Small particles that pass easily through paper filter bags are a major source of respiratory irritation, as well as household dust.

Vacuum Frequency – Consumers should increase the frequency of vacuuming to stop soil from sifting downward and becoming embedded in the carpet pile. Vacuuming should be done more slowly in entry areas where most particle soils accumulate. Vacuum slowly over traffic areas two or three times.

Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) Filters – Use quality pleated or reusable electrostatic filters for HVAC systems. Reusable filters have acrylic rods that vibrate and create a static electricity that charges soil particles, thereby attracting them to the filter. Anticipate a cost of between $50 and $100 for quality filters. Reusable filters should be removed and flushed free of collected soils on a monthly basis.

Clean the Carpet – Professional hot water extraction cleaning lifts and suspends fine particles of soil. Then careful extraction flushes them from carpet fibers.

Clean Other Soft Surfaces – Clean upholstery, drapery, bedding and other fabric surfaces regularly; wash linens weekly to remove allergens.

Control Moisture and Humidity – Dust mites and mold are the two most common allergens present in higher humidity climates. Dust mite infestation can be eliminated if the relative humidity of a home/building, not just a particular area, is consistently maintained below 50 percent.

[fasswfl]

[fasswfl]

EPRI's Manning discusses role of transmission improvements in Power Plan compliance

[fasswfl]

[valhallawanderer]

Nature Is Speaking – Penélope Cruz is Water | Conservation International (CI)

______________________________________________________________

Nature doesn’t need people, people need nature.

Human beings are part of nature, nature is not dependent on human beings to exist.

Human beings, on the other hand, are totally dependent on nature to exist.

The growing number of people on the planet and how we live here is going to determine the future of nature and the future of us.

Nature will go on, no matter what, it will evolve.

The question is, will it be with us or without us?

If nature could talk, it would probably say it doesn’t much matter either way.

We must understand there are aspects of how our planet evolves that are totally out of our control, but there are things that we can manage, control and do responsibly that will allow us and the planet to evolve together.

We are Conservation International and we need your help.

Our movement is dedicated to managing those things we can control better, country by country, business by business, human by human.

We are not about us vs. them, it doesn’t matter if you’re an American, a Canadian or a Papua New Guinean, and you don’t even have to be particularly fond of the ocean or have a soft spot for elephants.

This is simply about all of us coming together to do what needs to be done, because if we don’t, nature will continue to evolve. Without us.

Here’s to the future. With humans

______________________________________________________________

[fasswfl]

AIR POLLUTION: Texas makes its case against a tighter ozone standard

Amanda Peterka, E&E reporter

Greenwire: Tuesday, April 14, 2015               

Texas air regulators last week laid out their scientific and economic case against a tighter ozone standard that the Obama administration says is necessary to protect public health.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality held a three-day workshop where experts invited by the agency charged that U.S. EPA is molding uncertain scientific data to support a predetermined policy conclusion to lower the national standard.

The workshop also concluded that EPA had neglected to study the negative health effects stemming from the alleged big economic impacts of a tighter standard.

Texas regulators will likely highlight the workshop's conclusions in the coming months as EPA and the White House wrap up work on the proposal. The workshop will also likely provide fodder for potential legal action against EPA's final decision, which is expected by Oct. 1.

"I think Texas and the United States is going to benefit greatly from the work here," TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw said.

Ground-level ozone is a key component of smoggy air that's formed when nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight.

In November, EPA proposed to tighten the national standard from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb based on a review of the data on the public health effects of ozone exposure.

"Proposing, and then finalizing, an air quality standard involves evaluating the latest available science, and we have more than 1,000 new studies since the last review that we've taken into account," EPA said. "Based on the administrator's evaluation of the latest research, [EPA chief Gina McCarthy] believes that a standard in the proposed range will provide substantial public health benefits for millions of Americans by reducing both ozone and particle pollution."

For months, though, TCEQ has raised concerns that the agency's proposal would not lead to any "measurable" health benefits and has called on EPA to leave the standard at 75 ppb. The Texas agency also recently commissioned a study by NERA Economic Consulting that found the state's GDP would take a hit of $30 billion a year under a 65 ppb standard between 2017 and 2040.

"There are real costs associated with this," TCEQ Commissioner Toby Baker said. "The irony of ironies is that it'll make it harder to build roads in a town that is gridlocked for several hours every single day, which actually increases the amount of ozone in the air."

Texas' views are in opposition to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents most state and local air regulators in the country. In public comments to EPA, NACAA said it welcomed the agency's proposal.

"The serious threats to public health from exposure to ozone are well documented," the D.C.-based organization wrote.

Texas pulled out of the group in the mid-2000s because it felt that its views were not being well-represented (Greenwire, Jan. 14).

TCEQ announced the three-day ozone workshop last month, and its speakers included several industry-affiliated attorneys and researchers. The workshop also featured a panel of scientists to act as a sort of antithesis to EPA's committee of scientific advisers.

TCEQ billed the event -- which was sponsored with the assistance of the firms Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Gradient and NERA -- as an independent look at EPA's proposal.

The Environmental Defense Fund, which supports a tighter ozone standard, expressed disappointment in the Texas agency's meeting. Elena Craft, a senior health scientist with the group, said TCEQ did not extend any invitations to environmental or public health advocates to sit on any of the panels.

Craft, who attended the workshop in person, said its focus on uncertainty missed a key point: The body of evidence linking ozone pollution to adverse public health effects is increasing. And by law, EPA is supposed to only look at the weight of public health data when setting a new standard.

"I felt like all the issues around uncertainty essentially were a distraction from the fact that all of the recent evidence has only served to strengthen the idea that ozone is a tremendous health threat and that we need to be protecting the public from it," she said in an interview with Greenwire after the meeting.

'Oversampling these children'

Among the arguments raised by experts at the workshop: Epidemiological studies linking ozone to negative health effects contain many limitations that make it difficult to separate out the effects of ozone from other factors.

For much of the workshop, the science panel focused on a 2009 study that looked at the correlation between ozone and premature death in several cities. On average, the study linked higher ozone levels with more premature deaths, but panelists pointed to some instances where higher ozone was correlated with fewer deaths.

"I think it's a huge issue," said Julie Goodman, a toxicologist with Gradient who has been commissioned to do ozone research for industry groups and TCEQ. "Because obviously ozone is not protective in some cities and causing mortality in others. I think it's a sign that there's some other factor associated with ozone."

Workshop panelists also said studies done in the lab showed trivial effects to lung function, relied on varying exposure times and could not be extrapolated to the real world.

"EPA is trotting out benefits that we have a lot of problems with in terms of credibility," said Henry Nickel, an industry counsel at Hunton & Williams LLP.

Sonja Sax, a toxicologist at Gradient, also argued that models of children's reactions to ozone exposure were outdated because they were based on the amount of time kids spent outdoors in the 1980s and 1990s.

Children are spending more time indoors nowadays, she said.

"In my mind, it is kind of over-sampling these children that ... are spending a lot of time outdoors, engaged in very heavy exercise," she said. "And it's unclear whether it's really a realistic scenario."

The net effect, she said, is that lowering the ozone standard would have only a marginal impact on health. She and others added that EPA had also not considered "health dis-benefits" that would occur if people lost their jobs due to a lowering of the standard.

EPA has estimated that the benefits of the ozone proposal would yield significant savings in health care costs and outweigh overall costs by as much as 3 to 1. A new standard set at 70 ppb would cost the nation $3.9 billion a year by 2025, though that figure excludes California, according to EPA. A 65 ppb standard, on the other hand, would cost $15 billion a year.

Craft of the Environmental Defense Fund, who described herself as being the only "card-carrying enviornmentalist" at the three-day meeting, said that TCEQ's panelists had nitpicked studies and that EPA had looked at the full weight of evidence.

TCEQ's work, she said, "doesn't nullify the existing body of work that's out there."

In the case of the mortality studies, Craft added, "while they are probably not the strongest evidence in making the case for adverse health effects, there's nothing that's been presented that would provide an alternative hypothesis for why we are seeing those changes in mortality in multi-city studies."

The American Lung Association and other public health groups have called on EPA to set a standard at no higher than 60 ppb.

What comes next?

Last week's workshop was partly a strategy session for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and industry critics for how to go about opposing the ozone standard as EPA finalizes its proposal and beyond. Several legal panelists offered advice on the best ways to attack the proposal in and out of the courts, most of them revolving around focusing on uncertainties in the science backing the proposal.

"If you're [the American Petroleum Institute], you'll probably want to focus on uncertainties in contrast to massive health dis-benefits," said Thomas Lorenzen, a partner and Dorsey & Whitney LLP. "If you're EDF, you'll want to take the opposite tact. ... You'll want to focus on supporting EPA's view that those costs are much lower and that the health science is actually fairly solid."

It's unclear how useful the workshop will actually prove to be. EPA closed its comment period in mid-March; while many of the issues raised last week were also raised in written public comments, EPA is not required to respond directly to the workshop's proceedings.

And challenging the action through litigation comes with big hurdles, the most significant of which is that courts tend to place great weight in EPA's scientific and technical expertise, according to Lorenzen, who previously defended EPA regulations in the Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division.

For example, a federal court upheld EPA's 2008 standard, even though EPA did not follow the advice of its own scientific advisers.

"In the face of wide array of contradictory evidence, the administrator can still act by picking and choosing which science he or she credits and explaining why he or she does not credit the other science," Lorenzen said.

Michael Honeycutt, director of TCEQ's toxicology division, applauded the workshop and said it reinforced his doubts about EPA's proposal. Honeycutt last year came under fire by environmentalists for public statements arguing that EPA shouldn't lower the standard because people spend most of their time indoors.

One of the goals of the workshop "was to see if I'm crazy, because if you just Google my name, there are people who think I'm crazy," Honeycutt said. "But I haven't heard anything the past two or three days that suggested I'm crazy."

Craft, though, said the workshop was an example of misplaced priorities at TCEQ.

"The agency has spent millions of dollars funding Gradient's work, their own research on ozone," she said. "This is an agency that doesn't have enough inspectors to go out and inspect huge facilities."

[fasswfl]

Groups sue EPA over industry toxics standards

A coalition of environmental groups this week filed a lawsuit against U.S. EPA alleging that the agency failed to complete required reviews of air toxics standards for 21 industry categories.

The groups' complaint charges that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by not reviewing and updating the hazardous air pollutant standards for the industries. They include chemical companies, metals and plastics operations, and municipal landfills.

The coalition behind the lawsuit is composed of local organizations based in California, Louisiana, Oregon and Ohio. They filed the lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"Exposure to hazardous air pollutants emitted by industries covered by this lawsuit can cause serious human health effects, including reproductive disorders and cancer," said a press release yesterday by the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, one of the groups. "Many major sources of industrial air pollution are located in areas where people are already overburdened with environmental contamination."

Under the Clean Air Act's program for hazardous air pollutants, the agency is required to review standards every eight years to ensure that they're adequately protecting public health.

According to the lawsuit, EPA has missed its statutory deadlines to launch reviews for the 21 industry categories.

The industries are considered "major" sources of hazardous air pollution under the Clean Air Act. They have been found to emit several harmful pollutants, including metals, organic compounds and inorganic acid gases.

The groups have asked the court to find that EPA violated the Clean Air Act and to compel the agency to review the standards.

A representative for EPA said in an email that the agency was reviewing the lawsuit.

[fasswfl]

Audit flags problems with data contingency plans

Robin Bravender, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, April 9, 2015                

U.S. EPA should improve its plans for recovering data management operations in the event of a disaster, according to the agency's watchdog.

The EPA Office of Inspector General issued a new report today finding that functions at EPA's National Computer Center -- which provides computing and data management support for the agency -- might be hampered in the event of a disaster due to a lack of proper planning.

"Information systems play a critical part in the EPA mission and business processes. As such, it is important that these systems operate effectively without excessive interruption," the audit says. "When a service interruption occurs, it is essential that the NCC efficiently restores critical applications important to helping the EPA achieve its mission to protect human health and the environment."

Auditors found that critical contingency planning documents for NCC and security systems were either not up to date or didn't exist.

The IG's office recommended that agency officials develop and implement a process to keep the center's information security contingency planning documents current and ensure that all contact information for disaster recovery teams is up to date. According to the audit, all of the watchdogs' recommendations had been resolved.

"EPA has outlined corrective actions or proposed alternative solutions to address the recommendations in the report," said EPA spokeswoman Laura Allen. "The agency is committed to maintaining the most accurate contact information."

[fasswfl]

EPA has flexibility in not setting standards for Gulf 'dead zone'

U.S. EPA deserves significant deference in deciding whether to set water quality standards for the 6,000-square-mile "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

The opinion from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is largely a win for EPA.

At issue is an effort by environmental groups dating back to 2008 to force the agency to set numeric standards for phosphorous and nitrogen from fertilizer and other sources that soak up oxygen in the Mississippi River Basin and northern Gulf of Mexico.

EPA denied the Gulf Restoration Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and other groups' request without making a "necessity determination" regarding whether such standards were warranted to protect public health and the environment. The lawsuit followed.

A federal judge in September 2013 ruled that EPA could not simply refuse to make the necessity determination and remanded the case back to the agency.

Yesterday, a three-judge 5th Circuit panel disagreed with that conclusion.

Judge Patrick Higginbotham, a Republican appointee, said EPA was not mandated by the Clean Water Act to make such a determination in response to the environmental groups' rulemaking request.

The district court's finding, he wrote, "was in error."

Higginbotham cited the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision on climate change Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court held that greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

In that case, EPA had refused to make a similar threshold determination when asked by states, environmental groups and others to regulate the heat-trapping gases.

On that issue, the high court ruled that the agency could avoid such an initial determination if it provided a reasonable explanation.

Higginbotham said the same standard applies here. He stopped short of saying EPA had provided such an explanation, instead remanding the issue back to lower court.

But he added that EPA should get significant leeway from the court.

"In light of this highly deferential standards of review, the agency's burden is slight," Higginbotham wrote.

The case has put EPA in a difficult position. It has acknowledged the significant pollution problem in the northern Gulf and Mississippi River Basin and has sought to persuade states to set their own standards to address the contamination.

Even environmentalists largely prefer that solution and acknowledge that EPA lacks the resources to promulgate the complex criteria for the entire basin.

Green groups contend, however, that such factors don't excuse inaction for the 31-state basin. Progress has been slow. In February, EPA and states said it would take two decades to reduce the annual dead zone to 2,000 square miles, their previously stated goal for this year (E&ENews PM, Feb. 12).

The ruling may also be a break for EPA because the agency likely didn't want to be on the record saying the standards are not necessary, which would downplay the significant environmental problems in the area (Greenwire, Nov. 19, 2013).

EPA's challengers won on one point in the 5th Circuit ruling. The court held that EPA's decision not to make a necessity determination could be challenged in court.

"The subject matter of the [Clean Water Act] is also consistent with judicial review," Higginbotham wrote. "Federal courts regularly hear cases addressing environmental regulations, including those implicating federalism issues."

Click here for the opinion.

[fasswfl]

New chemical standards could be coming in Texas, 2 years after deadly explosion

Texas legislators appear to be headed toward a compromise that would improve safety standards at businesses that handle ammonium nitrate, as they approach the second anniversary of a fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 people in the small town of West.

H.B. 942 would allow the state fire marshal, a local fire marshal or a local fire chief to inspect any facility that stores ammonium nitrate and to order safety improvements if a potential hazard is found. It also would allow local fire departments to hold planning inspections at the same facilities and puts state regulators at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in charge of handling right-to-know reports, known as Tier 2 reports.

The bill codifies rules that the state chemist has written for ammonium nitrate businesses, a move meant to ensure "regulatory certainty" for the industry, state Rep. Kyle Kacal (R) said during a hearing of the House Environmental Regulation Committee. Kacal's district includes West.

"This bill writes the regulations into law instead of creating broad rulemaking authority," Kacal said, according to a webcast of the hearing.

The committee didn't vote on the bill, but none of the legislators raised objections. Two fertilizer business owners spoke in favor of the bill, as did the head of the Texas chapter of Public Citizen.

There was still some tension. Fertilizer owners have fought against more public disclosure of the chemicals they handle, while Public Citizen and other groups have pressed for more openness.

Kacal's bill is one of at least two aimed at beefing up chemical safety in Texas. The agriculture and chemical industries have opposed some of the other bills because they might require business owners to phase out wooden buildings (Greenwire, April 1).

The explosion in West happened April 17, 2013, in a warehouse that stored more than 20 tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer so chemically potent that it's sometimes used as an explosive. Local volunteer firefighters were in the process of backing away from the fire when the warehouse detonated, killing 10 first responders and five others.

The deaths highlighted a string of problems in the way local communities prepare for emergencies involving chemicals. Information-sharing among local communities was sluggish, for instance, and the warehouse didn't have a sprinkler system or other precautions.

The Texas Legislature tried in 2013 and 2014 to beef up the state's chemical safety laws, but met resistance from the agriculture industry, which relies on fertilizer (Greenwire, April 14, 2014).

[fasswfl]

EPA preparing to ban extinct type of wastewater disposal

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter

Published: Monday, April 6, 2015    

U.S. EPA is preparing to release rules preventing companies from discharging wastewater from shale drilling into publicly owned water treatment plants.

EPA proposed the rules in 2011 after becoming alarmed by the practice of some drillers in the Northeast, particularly in Pennsylvania, of sending their wastewater to sewage-treatment plants unequipped to handle the salts and sometimes even radioactive material in the waste (EnergyWire, Oct. 20, 2011).

The Office of Management and Budget completed its review last Monday. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the proposed rule Tuesday, and it is being prepared for publication in the Federal Register this month.

EPA has scheduled a public hearing for May 29 at EPA headquarters.

In its announcement this week, EPA said it doesn't know of any shale drillers currently discharging to publicly owned treatment works, or POTWs. But it wants to prevent such discharges from happening in the future because they have happened in the past.

State radioactivity tests done in Pennsylvania rivers came back "at or below" safe levels. But the state asked drillers to stop shipping wastewater to treatment plants.

In most states, such wastewater has long been injected into deep underground wells rather than being sent to treatment plants. Many drillers are now also looking for ways to recycle the wastewater and use it in the hydraulic fracturing of other wells.

[fasswfl]

EPA likely to ban new outdoor uses of 'bee-harming' chemical

Tiffany Stecker, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, April 2, 2015

U.S. EPA sent letters today to manufacturers of neonicotinoid pesticides with outdoor uses to inform them that the chemicals will not likely be approved for new uses until pollinator risk assessments are complete, the Office of Pesticide Programs said.

In the letter, EPA asks manufacturers with pending registrations for the insecticides imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran in the class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids to withdraw or change any references to using the product outdoors by April 30. Neonicotinoids have been linked to a decline in bee health.

"EPA believes that until the data on pollinator health have been received and appropriate risk assessments completed, it is unlikely to be in a position to determine that such uses would avoid 'unreasonable adverse effects on the environment' as required under FIFRA [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act]," Office of Pesticide Programs Director Jack Housenger wrote in the letter, referring to the law that regulates pesticides in the United States.

CropLife America, the trade group representing many pesticide makers, expressed disappointment with the announcement.

"CropLife America is concerned that EPA's recent regulatory decision will adversely impact growers' ability to meet future crop protection needs and access necessary products," said a statement from the organization. "Pollinator health is essential to farming, and the crop protection industry continually works to develop the most precise products that minimize effects on non-target organisms."

Environmental groups were optimistic but said the move didn't go far enough.

"We're pleased to see EPA finally admit that the agency lacks sufficient information to assess whether bees and other pollinators will be harmed [by] uses of these chemicals," said Larissa Walker, pollinator campaign director for the Center for Food Safety. "However, there are dozens of neonicotinoid uses already approved for outdoor use, and until EPA acts under FIFRA to suspend those current uses, too, bee and other pollinator populations are still in jeopardy of suffering detrimental effects."

Friends of the Earth said it would only be satisfied with a complete ban on the chemicals.

"EPA and the entire Obama administration need to deal with the heart of the problem by banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and transitioning to sustainable agriculture and land management," said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, food futures campaigner with the organization.

"We need EPA to protect bees and other pollinators from the neonicotinoids and other bee-harming insecticides that are already covering the corn and soybean acres in our area, not just keep new products off the market," said Joanna Voigt, program and communications coordinator at Kansas Rural Center.

The White House is expected to release a major report on pollinator health this month, in which all federal agencies will outline actions to stem the decline in bee populations.

[fasswfl]

Groups want to classify many flame retardants as hazardous substances

Sam Pearson, E&E reporter

Published: Tuesday, March 31, 2015

A coalition of chemical safety and public health groups filed a petition today asking the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban a broad class of flame retardants from most household products, saying the chemicals are harmful to human health and serve little purpose.

The groups asked CPSC to use its authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to ban the use of "any non-polymeric, additive organohalogen flame retardant" in children's products, furniture, mattresses and electronic casing, a restriction that would be far broader than existing regulations.

The move is necessary because U.S. EPA's regulation of flame retardants is hampered by chemical companies' ability to shift from chemicals subject to restrictions to other, similar chemicals that can be used more freely, said Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute, even as research shows that many of the chemicals can migrate from products into house dust, through which children are exposed to the compounds.

"We feel that this class of chemicals, since the '70s, has been a series of regrettable substitutions, where each chemical is heralded as safe and effective, and then turns out to be neither for many uses," Blum said. "So we think it's time, instead of going one by one, where there's always a new chemical cousin or substitute, to really look at the whole class."

Blum said the petition was the result of years of scientific and legal work by the groups. Signatories to the petition include the American Academy of Pediatrics; the National Hispanic Medical Association; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the Learning Disabilities Association of America; Consumers Union; the Consumer Federation of America; the League of United Latin American Citizens; Worksafe; and Philip Landrigan, director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

"Ridding these toxics from the many products we use everyday would improve the health of most people in the United States, and especially children," said Eve Gartner, an Earthjustice staff attorney who worked on the petition, in a statement.

Still, it's not clear whether CPSC has an appetite for a broad rulemaking that is sure to face steep resistance from the chemical industry and burden the agency. A much narrower proposed rule to restrict certain phthalates from children's products and child care articles has taken the agency several years longer than anticipated and has prompted a vigorous dispute from chemical industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, over scientific decisions made by CPSC staff and a panel of scientists who studied the issue (E&ENews PM, March 16).

CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said he wasn't sure if the agency had received the petition.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, said that while it is clear that certain flame retardants are likely to harm humans and the environment and that many flame retardants do not work effectively at the levels at which they are used in most consumer products, it may not be possible to justify targeting such a large class of the chemicals.

"I'm concerned with the idea of just saying, because something has a halogen on it, we don't want it," Birnbaum said. She added, "I haven't seen enough data to convince me that that's true."

Under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, CPSC can designate "a substance or any mixture of substance" as a hazard if it finds that the chemicals "may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use." Products defined as hazardous substances must be sold with warning labels, but the petition argues warning labels would be insufficient to protect the public from halogenated flame retardants.

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which became law in 1960 and has been amended several times since, pre-dates the Toxic Substances Control Act, which specifies how EPA may regulate toxic chemicals. FHSA is aimed at toxic household products and has led to regulations that, for example, require Drano and other potentially harmful consumer products to be sold with labels explaining their proper use. But the law also allows CPSC to declare a product a "banned hazardous substance" if it can show that labeling alone would not sufficiently protect the public from the hazardous substance.

"It's unfortunate these groups are presenting families with the false choice between chemical safety and fire safety when we can have both," Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, a branch of the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement.

Goodman added that it is "not appropriate to make broad conclusions or impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach for these substances."

[fasswfl]

FreshAire Solutions SWFL

As the voices of concern over the Clean Power Plan's impact on grid reliability grow louder, do states have the ability to ensure reliability in their compliance plans by using tools currently at their disposal? During today's OnPoint, Susan Tierney, senior adviser at the Analysis Group, explains why she believes reliability issues will be solved as stakeholders proceed "in parallel" with compliance. She also discusses the growing support for states to employ the "just say no" option for power plan compliance.

[fasswfl]

REGULATION:

18 attorneys general slam EPA in letter calling for end to Clean Power Plan                        Published: Wednesday, April 1, 2015                               

After U.S. EPA missed a deadline for adopting regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell (R) called for the EPA regulations to be scrapped.

"Considering all of the grounds upon which this rule is likely to be overturned, and because the rule making threatens the citizens of the states, we as the chief legal officers of the states are notifying your agency that this proposed rule has expired," he wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, signed by 18 other state attorneys general. "It therefore must be withdrawn."

Caldwell argued that the agency did not produce a final version of the rule within one year after it was proposed, and thus did not comply with the Clean Air Act.

EPA officials responded that the agency was not required to withdraw the regulations on account of a missed deadline. The regulations, developed as part of President Obama's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have been opposed by Louisiana on the grounds they will raise costs for state industries and residents.

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming signed Caldwell's letter (Mark Schleifstein, New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 30). -- MV