The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is embarking on a complicated effort to define large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for regulation under a controversial state law passed last year that lifted a decades-old regulatory exemption for the facilities. Farm and dairy organizations that have expressed skepticism over initial formulas used to define large CAFOs are closely following the air board approach because it will determine how many dairies will be regulated statewide, and perhaps across the country.
EPA officials may bar the public from commenting on a controversial agreement temporarily exempting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from enforcement, despite a commitment to a key Democratic senator last year that the agency would seek public comment on a draft version of the agreement before it was finalized.
One EPA source would not discuss specific plans on the agreement, but said the agency has made no final decisions on its release. "We're still considering how to proceed with this," the source says.
EPA's proposal for the first-ever "residual risk" air toxics standard could set important precedents for upcoming rules of the same kind, according to environmentalists who charge that the methods EPA used to set the residual risk limits are insufficient to protect public health.
However, EPA officials defend the landmark plan by saying it does everything feasible to lower health risks from industrial facilities.
A new study showing high levels of a class of flame retardant chemicals in farmed salmon failed to find significant amounts of the most widely used toxin in that class -- prompting industry to claim that growing efforts to ban the compound should be dropped.
EPA is considering a petition from the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to conduct a formal rulemaking exempting ships laden with PCBs from legal requirements banning the export of the toxins after a federal judge questioned whether EPA's earlier plan to grant an exemption without a rulemaking was lawful.
Environmentalists are threatening to sue New England blueberry farmers for aerial application of pesticides without Clean Water Act (CWA) permits, backing industry fears that prior court decisions requiring the permits for applications under other conditions could prompt activists to target agricultural spraying.
Despite EPA efforts over the past several years to review and possibly revise a controversial rule on reporting lead use and releases, a group representing small businesses is pushing a federal court for an immediate ruling to repeal the standard. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) recently filed a motion for summary judgment in its three-year-old lawsuit against the reporting requirements after EPA officials said it would be at least another year before the agency might revise the standard.
EPA is poised to release a revised risk assessment for boron that will significantly relax controversial safety factors intended to compensate for scientific uncertainties, which agency sources say could lead to less stringent regulation of the widely used mineral.
The risk assessment, slated to be released this week, marks one of the first assessments EPA is issuing in its push for a more data-driven approach to minimize scientific uncertainties about environmental contaminants' impacts.
New rules the Bush Administration says will clarify and improve the registration process for pesticides that may pose a threat to endangered species are being attacked by environmentalists who indicate they may sue to overturn the regulations. Environmentalists say U.S. EPA has for years shirked its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to consult with federal wildlife agencies on certain pesticide registrations, and instead of making an effort to comply with the law, the administration is now changing the rules to legalize EPA's negligence.
Environmentalists and farm worker advocates this week criticized the state's efforts to prevent pesticide drift poisonings and touted a bill that establishes a fund to cover drift victims' health care costs while improving local response to drift incidents. But the bill, which will likely be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee next week, may now face rough sledding after several of the state's major agricultural organizations recently announced their opposition.