en-us 30 140 20 http://www.progressivereform.org http://www.progressivereform.org/imgs/printPageLogo.gif http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=7691B0E3-CF9C-718F-B2D2918441EE067A http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=7691B0E3-CF9C-718F-B2D2918441EE067A Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:17:13 EST The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has recently proposed to weaken water quality standards in the state. As the Austin American-Statesman reported earlier this week, The proposal would draw new categories for Texas' waterways, basing regulations on how much humans have contact with them. And it would raise the amount of allowable bacteria in the waterways before they are considered impaired, requiring local and state authorities to monitor and clean them. Today CPR Member Scholar Thomas McGarity has an op-ed in the Statesman arguing that the move would not only be bad policy, but also likely violate the federal Clean Water Act. Concludes McGarity: If TCEQ is unwilling to protect Texas waters, then the Environmental Protection Agency will have to step in and disapprove this unjustifiable downgrade. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=7691B0E3-CF9C-718F-B2D2918441EE067A http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=769A4E55-9296-D990-5A44E0E7A14081E4 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=769A4E55-9296-D990-5A44E0E7A14081E4 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:26:28 EST The Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing Tuesday on the Protecting America's Workers Act of 2009, legislation that would, among other reforms, modernize workplace health and safety penalties. More than a decade ago, I testified at a similar hearing in the House of Representatives on the same subject. The need for stronger OSHA penalties was apparent then, and it is no less apparent today. The hearing is memorable to me because I testified along with a father whose son was killed on a construction site while working at a summer job between years of college. His son was working on one of the floors of a multi-story building under construction. He was asked to carry some construction materials across the floor of the building from one side to the other. He piled up the materials in his arms with the result that he could not see clearly in front of himself. When he walked across the floor, he stepped into the hole that was the elevator shaft, falling to his death at the bottom. The contractor had not put up a barricade around the hole in the floor, as it was required to do in order to prevent just such accidents. OSHA has done much good; workplaces are safer than they were at the time that the agency was founded. But one does not have to look very far to find stories like the one told that day at the hearing. Workers continue to be killed and seriously injured in accidents related to OSHA violations. Sidney Shapiro http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=769A4E55-9296-D990-5A44E0E7A14081E4 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=7169E7E8-C39B-88CF-A4D09477DA0DC294 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=7169E7E8-C39B-88CF-A4D09477DA0DC294 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:15:30 EST Tuesday, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released an Interim Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, a group charged by President Obama in Executive Order 13514 to develop (by Fall 2010) recommendations for the federal government for adapting to climate change. More than 20 federal agencies, departments, and offices are participating in the task force. The progress report notes that some agencies are taking action toward implementing programs and policies to deal with the changes and risks climate change will bring. But it also notes many significant gaps remain, including: Coherent research programs to identify and describe regional impacts associated with near-term, long-term, and abrupt global climate change; Relevant climate change and impact information that is accessible and usable by decision-makers and practitioners; A unified strategic vision and approach; Understanding of the challenges at all levels of government; Comprehensive and localized risk and vulnerability assessments; Organized and coordinated efforts across local, State and Federal agencies; Strong links between, and support and participation of, Tribal, regional, State, and local partners; A strategy to link resources, both financial and intellectual, to critical needs; A robust approach to evaluating and applying lessons learned. Shana Jones http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=7169E7E8-C39B-88CF-A4D09477DA0DC294 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=6CD33FBF-C11C-B113-8142B7FE934E5845 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=6CD33FBF-C11C-B113-8142B7FE934E5845 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:55:40 EST This week Water Policy Report (subs. required) reported on EPA's exercise of residual designation authority (RDA) over stormwater discharges and a pilot stormwater-reduction trading program in Massachusetts. Together, these actions have the potential to significantly reduce stormwater discharges into local waterways. If successful, this pilot trading program could be a template for similar trading programs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and across the country. Stormwater discharges occur when impervious surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking lots channel high volumes of contaminated water into a nearby waterbody. In the absence of impervious surfaces, the water would be absorbed or stored in the ground and then slowly released back into the water cycle. EPA implemented two phases of stormwater regulation in 1990 and again in 1999. Today, three categories of stormwater are regulated: certain municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) that serve populations of 100,000 or more or that serve populations of less than 100,000 in certain urbanized areas; construction activities that disturb one or more acres; and certain industrial activities. EPA may also regulate stormwater by exercising its "residual designation authority" (RDA), found in CWA sections 402(p)(2)(E) and (p)(6). These sections allow EPA or the state authority to require NPDES permits for specific stormwater discharges known to present the most significant threats to surface water but that do not fall the two categories described above. A discharge that is entirely composed of stormwater may require a NPDES permit if the EPA Administrator or state agency determines that the stormwater discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. Section 402(p)(6) also directs the Administrator to designate stormwater discharges to be regulated to protect water quality. A NPDES permit writer may consider factors such as the location of the discharge, the volume of the discharge, the quantity and nature of pollutants, and other relevant factors. Yee Huang http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=6CD33FBF-C11C-B113-8142B7FE934E5845 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=673E3A7D-F055-AD52-F095D9584AA86A47 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=673E3A7D-F055-AD52-F095D9584AA86A47 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:51:35 EST A few congressional hearings today we're keeping an eye on: Catch Shares. The House Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife will discuss "catch shares" as a fisheries management policy. Previously, CPR Member Scholar Rebecca Bratspies discussed the limitations of catch shares, and in December applauded NOAA for moving forward cautiously. Protecting America's Workers Act. The House Education and Labor's Workforce Protection Subcommittee will discuss HR 2067, which would amend the OSH Act to protect more workers and increase penalties for employers who break the law. Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process POSTPONED. No new date announced. . The House Judiciary Commiteee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative law will hold a hearing on our favorite topic -- the doings of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=673E3A7D-F055-AD52-F095D9584AA86A47 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=621DE5AB-E559-C5C8-C0AE3B8B1639FFC0 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=621DE5AB-E559-C5C8-C0AE3B8B1639FFC0 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:58:34 EST Cross-posted from Legal Planet. As Cara and Dan have explained, ocean acidification is the other big climate change problem. As atmospheric CO2 levels rise, more CO2 dissolves in the oceans. That in turn increases ocean acidity, which changes the ecology of the seas, most obviously by reducing the ability of corals and a variety of other marine organisms to build their "skeletons" and protective shells from calcium carbonate. Ocean acidification is a pollution problem, just as acid rain and climate change are. So just as the Clean Air Act ought to have something to say about atmospheric dumping of greenhouse gases, the Clean Water Act should have something to say about the accumulation of CO2 in the oceans. (Note: I'm not saying these first-generation pollution control laws are the best way to deal with climate change, but they do provide some tools that are worth trying in the absence of GHG-specific legislation.) The Center for Biological Diversity has been pushing the argument that the CWA covers ocean acidification, and EPA under Lisa Jackson is beginning to agree. Over a year ago, Sean noted that EPA had responded to a Center petition by agreeing to evaluate the possible application of the CWA, and last April EPA issued a notice that it would review its ocean acidity water quality criteria. As I pointed out at the time, that put EPA on board for eventual regulation of ocean acidity, but on the very slow train. Holly Doremus http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=621DE5AB-E559-C5C8-C0AE3B8B1639FFC0 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=634BD2D7-D523-ACD5-11D47CCAE04F1707 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=634BD2D7-D523-ACD5-11D47CCAE04F1707 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:28:04 EST A year after the contaminated drywall story went big, a "test trial" over damages from the material begins today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court has posted documents regarding the case here, and outlets covering the case include the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Bradenton Herald, and Palm Beach Post. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=634BD2D7-D523-ACD5-11D47CCAE04F1707 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=6375D50D-0DCC-D07D-22F01D72C3C148EF http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=6375D50D-0DCC-D07D-22F01D72C3C148EF Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:13:51 EST The Wall Street Journal had what seemed like a major scoop over the weekend: A federal safety investigation of the Toyota Prius that was involved in a dramatic incident on a California highway last week found a particular pattern of wear on the car's brakes that raises questions about the driver's version of the event, three people familiar with the investigation said. ... During and after the incident, Mr. Sikes said he was using heavy pressure on his brake pedal at high speeds. But the investigation of the vehicle, carried out jointly by safety officials from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Toyota engineers, didn't find signs the brakes had been applied at full force at high speeds over a sustained period of time, the three people familiar with the investigation said. The brakes were discolored and showed wear, but the pattern of friction suggested the driver had intermittently applied moderate pressure on the brakes, these people said, adding the investigation didn't find indicators of the heavy pressure described by Mr. Sikes. See also this version of the report. But the Journal's story has since been put into question. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=6375D50D-0DCC-D07D-22F01D72C3C148EF http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=52D5FC2E-F9E4-2834-4EEF1A5EB76DA41B http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=52D5FC2E-F9E4-2834-4EEF1A5EB76DA41B Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:45:24 EST In a rare public appearance at the Brookings Institute Wednesday, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein is quoted by BNA's Daily Report for Executives saying that his ambitious plans for revamping Executive Order 12,866 - the document that governs much of the process of regulating, and particularly OIRA's role in it - have been tabled for the time being as he and his staff study the lengthy comments presented by a broad range of industry and public interest groups. "So what we've been doing under the existing framework is working to implement the President's agenda in a way that is also alert to the content of the comments we've gotten," he explained. Meanwhile, outside the event, a small group of demonstrators, including one dressed as Sesame Street character Oscar the Grouch, demonstrated against "Ash Sunstein," whom they accused of working to kill an EPA proposal to regulate the disposal of toxic metal-laced coal ash that is now dumped into unlined pits in the ground. You can see a snippet of both the protestors and Sunstein's remarks on YouTube. The juxtaposition of the two events had that quirky edge that, well, makes democracy and free speech entertaining! Of course, Sunstein has had more than his share of free speech aimed at him since he was nominated. CPR Member Scholars raised concerns early on about his embrace of cost-benefit analysis, a tool that the Bush Administration used to water down or kill outright all kinds of needed protective regulations, particularly environmental ones, and we've stayed after OIRA since then. But Sunstein also came under figurative semi-automatic fire from Second Amendment "enthusiasts," whose distortions of Sunstein's views on animal rights led to a conservative blogosphere feeding frenzy. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=52D5FC2E-F9E4-2834-4EEF1A5EB76DA41B http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=54043422-0021-CB76-0E3F37C34397A35D http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=54043422-0021-CB76-0E3F37C34397A35D Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:15:26 EST This item, by Liz Borkowski, is cross-posted from The Pump Handle. Exactly one year ago, President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity that gave the Office of Science and Technology Policy 120 days to "develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch" based on six principles that Obama specified. OSTP solicited public input to inform its drafting of the recommendations. It's now been 365 days, and OSTP hasn't released its recommendations. Why the delay? Since President Obama issued the scientific integrity memo during his first hundred days in office, this is evidently an important issue for him. Although advocates for scientific integrity have welcomed many of Obama's decisions and appointments, threats to the integrity of government science haven't disappeared. As I noted last week, my colleagues and I have just released a report on scientists in government, and we found that many policies and practices need to be strengthened in order to ensure that federal-agency scientists can do their best work. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been tracking the Obama administration's progress on several aspects of scientific integrity, and they find that while the administration has made progress, it still has a long way to go. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=54043422-0021-CB76-0E3F37C34397A35D http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=4863B479-B239-42D9-247372E649C8FB45 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=4863B479-B239-42D9-247372E649C8FB45 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:04:34 EST Cross-posted from Legal Planet. When government decides that private economic activity needs to be restricted in order to preserve some part of nature, there are two basic ways to get that result - by demanding cooperation through regulation or by buying it through economic incentives or outright purchase. The second approach is often politically easier, but environmentalists have long been skeptical of relying too heavily on it. Two major concerns have repeatedly been expressed. First, paying for conservation suffers from obvious fiscal constraints, especially in times of tight government budgets. Second, it may contribute to what economists call "moral hazard" - the tendency of those who anticipate a government bail-out to ignore the extent to which their activity may pose personal or societal risks. A lengthy story about a conservation deal in the Everglades in Monday's New York Times highlights a third concern: the private side might clean the government's clock in negotiations. The article focuses on Florida's plan to buy out US Sugar. The company is both a major landholder in the area between Lake Okechobee and Everglades National Park and, through runoff from its agricultural fields, a major contributor to the phosphorus pollution that is causing the decline of the native sawgrass ecosystem. In 2008, Florida announced a plan to buy out US Sugar over a six-year period. The company was to end its operations and convey 187,000 acres to the state in return for about $1.7 billion. The cost was to be paid by the South Florida Water Management District, which said publicly that it would not have to raise its taxes. Environmentalists, according to a Reuters story at the time, "raved." Holly Doremus http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=4863B479-B239-42D9-247372E649C8FB45 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=44336ACE-C19F-E5CD-5BB360BD1F1C5893 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=44336ACE-C19F-E5CD-5BB360BD1F1C5893 Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:33:05 EST In response to a question at a National Press Club appearance on Monday, Lisa Jackson said that the EPA would be finalizing an action plan on BPA in the "very near future." As I noted here in January, the EPA had announced in September that it would be releasing action plans on a number of chemicals, including BPA, but when the first group of plans was released in late December, BPA was not among them. I raised a red flag because EPA had sent six draft chemical action plans to White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on December 14, OIRA hosted a meeting with BPA industry lobbyists a week later, then the BPA action plan was absent from the list of plans released on December 30. OIRA had no business reviewing the chemical action plans in the first place since they are not regulatory actions covered by EO 12,866. Last week, Sen. Chuck Schumer put some pressure on EPA and OIRA, asking Administrator Jackson for a written explanation regarding the "confounding decision" to hold back the BPA action plan. Now that the BPA action plan has been released from OIRA's grip (Inside Story, 3/4/10) and delivered to EPA for publication, what can we expect it to say? Matt Shudtz http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=44336ACE-C19F-E5CD-5BB360BD1F1C5893 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2EBBF415-A2A0-E9B1-B3367F21114830AC http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2EBBF415-A2A0-E9B1-B3367F21114830AC Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:30:37 EST Imagine opening your medicine cabinet, only to find that the warning and information labels on your over-the-counter medications no longer include dosing information. How would you know how much Benadryl to take or how much aspirin to give to your child? A provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's (OSHA) proposed rule modifying its Hazard Communication (HazCom) Standard threatens to deprive U.S. workers of similar safety information - information they depend upon ever day to protect themselves against the hazardous chemicals that they use in the workplace. CPR Board Member Sidney Shapiro and I have prepared testimony for a public hearing OSHA is holding today on the proposed rule, making the case that the provision is unnecessary and that it would likely leave workers more vulnerable to workplace hazards (full HazCom testimony). As the name suggests OSHA's HazCom Standard establishes a system for communicating hazards about dangerous chemicals to the workers who use them. The standard requires manufacturers to provide a "Safety Data Sheet" on each chemical they produce that explains what hazards the chemical might pose to human health or safety, and recommends steps that users of the chemical should take to avoid these hazards. In this regard, these Safety Data Sheets are a lot like the warning and information labels on over-the-counter medication. Just as you might consult the label before taking over-the-counter medication, workers would consult the relevant Safety Data Sheet before using a potentially dangerous chemical so that they know what precautions to take while using the chemical (For more information about the HazCom standard, see here.) James Goodwin http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2EBBF415-A2A0-E9B1-B3367F21114830AC http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2F7CB3DE-9C81-D2BF-BFBD576EB93F7E66 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2F7CB3DE-9C81-D2BF-BFBD576EB93F7E66 Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:01:22 EST Yesterday, the White House released a plan to restore Mississippi and Louisiana wetlands and barrier islands, which have been disappearing at a rapid clip for decades and continue to do so. Hurricane Katrina brought to the fore what many residents of these states already knew: federal, state, and local authorities were neither coordinated nor prepared to protect the Gulf Coast, its ecosystems, and its people from Mother Nature's worst. (See CPR's report on Katrina). The White House roadmap is designed to bring some much-needed order and leadership to Gulf Coast restoration efforts. It's a strong sign from the Obama Administration that it is serious about protecting the Gulf Coast. The roadmap also strives to put ecosystem restoration and sustainability "on a more equal footing with other priorities such as manmade navigation and structural approaches to flood protection and storm risk reduction." It rightly notes that these priorities make up complex pieces of a larger whole: wetlands protect inland ecosystems and communities from dangerous storm surges, for example; bayous, bays, and estuaries produce much of the fish and wildlife that coastal fishermen and communities depend upon for their livelihoods. The elevation of these "ecosystem services" to having "value" on par with priorities such as river navigation is a heartening sign. Shana Jones http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2F7CB3DE-9C81-D2BF-BFBD576EB93F7E66 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2C45CA2F-B2FA-0F04-802C431DD3C4E211 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2C45CA2F-B2FA-0F04-802C431DD3C4E211 Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:02:41 EST Today the top brass from OSHA opened their doors to the many stakeholders who have something to say about how the agency is doing in its efforts to protect U.S. workers. Of course, they got an earful. The event marks a new path for OSHA, in that the head of the agency and top career staff took the time to sit face-to-face with occupational health experts, workers, worker representatives, and even the families of victims of workplace accidents, not just the usual cast of characters from the industry lobbying firms. And it wasn't just a cattle call. OSHA head David Michaels, Debbie Berkowitz (Chief of Staff), Richard Fairfax (Director of Enforcement), and Dorothy Dougherty (Director of Standards) engaged the speakers in a way that showed they not only cared about what the speakers were saying but are genuinely interested in taking action to protect workers from occupational hazards - hazards we know about as well as emerging hazards. My testimony, based on our recent report, Workers at Risk: Regulatory Dysfunction at OSHA, can be found here. Matt Shudtz http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2C45CA2F-B2FA-0F04-802C431DD3C4E211 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=24784583-BA5A-C6F1-5470BD858550EA6C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=24784583-BA5A-C6F1-5470BD858550EA6C Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:40:27 EST This post, by Sarah Vogel, is cross-posted from The Pump Handle. If you thought the scientific debate about bisphenol A was over or even quieting down, you haven't been reading the latest issues of Toxicological Sciences. (What are you doing with your spare time?) Last month in an editorial piece published in the journal, Richard Sharpe queried: "Is It Time to End Concerns over the Estrogenic Effects of Bisphenol A?" His answer was an unequivocal 'yes', based on the latest study from Ryan et al. (published in the same issue) that found no reproductive effects from bisphenol A exposure in rats. The study, according to Sharpe, "throws cold water on this controversy." Not so fast. On Wednesday, February 17, 2010, the journal published a second letter to the editors, "Flawed Experimental Design Reveals the Need for Guidelines Requiring Appropriate Positive Controls in Endocrine Disruption Research," by Fred vom Saal and 23 other researchers. In a position quite contrary to Sharpe's, the letter pointed to an important design flaw in the study. This latest iteration of the controversy is about a fundamental and persistent challenge in the research on bisphenol A and other endocrine disrupting chemicals - what is the appropriate study design. Issues of animal selection, route of exposure, animal feed and housing, and appropriate use of positive controls all point to the complexity of studying extremely low levels of endocrine disruptors. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=24784583-BA5A-C6F1-5470BD858550EA6C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=1A4ABB03-01DA-D1E4-3B1B0E6E0B62B96D http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=1A4ABB03-01DA-D1E4-3B1B0E6E0B62B96D Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:15:18 EST Water pollution / water law issues on the front pages of the Times and the Post on the same day?! Yep. NYTimes: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Hampering E.P.A. WashPost: Rising with a bullet among top pollutants: Number Two Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=1A4ABB03-01DA-D1E4-3B1B0E6E0B62B96D http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=19B81FB9-D0C9-3EC0-D936A11E2018E1A1 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=19B81FB9-D0C9-3EC0-D936A11E2018E1A1 Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:17:13 EST The congressional hearings so far on "sudden unintended acceleration" (SUA) in Toyota cars should have made two truths obvious to Washington policymakers. First, the strategy of counting on major manufacturers to voluntarily ensure that their consumer products are safe is unworkable in a competitive market, and second, safety agencies like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) need to walk softly but carry a very large stick. Gone are the days when we could reasonably expect government technical experts to shadow manufacturers' design engineers in order to coax them into taking care, even in a market with fewer than ten major manufacturers. But NHTSA still should have stepped out in front of the strong industry trend to rely on electronic controls or, as it is colloquially known, "driving by wire," which is the likely source of SUA, at least in the Camry, and required all manufacturers to install an effective "brake to idle" feature across all models. According to the well-respected consulting firm Safety Research and Strategies, Inc., headed by former Center for Auto Safety staffer Sean Kane, this design, which is found in many other manufacturers' cars operated by electronic throttles, brings the engine to idle if both the brake and the accelerator pedals are applied. Too many Toyota drivers have reported that no amount of braking would bring the car to a stop. As important, now that the worst has happened and an unprecedented number of recalls are in the works, NHTSA must bring the full weight of its enforcement authority to bear on any malfeasance by Toyota. A decision by NHTSA to walk away without inflicting such punishment would encourage auto companies to return to business as usual. None of them want to be the next Toyota, but in the absence of a strong punitive response by the government, manufacturers have compelling incentives to continue to rely exclusively on internal corporate controls rather than disclosing problems to the government. And NHTSA, with a budget that is plainly insufficient to the task of ensuring vehicle safety, cannot protect the public without such full and timely disclosures. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=19B81FB9-D0C9-3EC0-D936A11E2018E1A1 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0AC46559-0CD0-3C38-F6315D6C70BBA03C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0AC46559-0CD0-3C38-F6315D6C70BBA03C Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:53:38 EST Thirty-eight years ago today, the dam holding back a massive coal-slurry impoundment (government-speak for a big pit filled with sludge) located in the middle of Buffalo Creek gave way, spilling 131 million gallons of black wastewater down the steep hills of West Virginia. The black waters eventually crested at 30 feet, washing away people, their houses, and their possessions. By the end of the catastrophe, 125 people were dead, 1,121 were injured, and more than 4,000 were left homeless. Interviewed years later, Jack Spadaro, an engineer teaching at West Virginia's School of Mines when the dam broke, told the West Virginia Gazette: "The thing that disgusted me was that people in the valley had been saying for years there was a problem there. They'd been evacuated many times before because of the fear of a dam failure." Spadaro added, "I went through stacks and stacks of documents that went back into the '50s, and I think that, if somewhere along the way, there had been somebody within government willing to say, 'Something really has to happen here,' then those people would be alive and their families would be whole." When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took office in the first wave of Obama appointments, she decided to become that official. Correctly identifying the problem of negligent disposal of 140 million tons of coal ash, a type of mining waste even more toxic than the slurry that assaulted the West Virginians, as a first-order environmental justice issue - people living within a mile of a coal ash dump site are 30 percent more likely to be poor and minority than the mainstream population-- Jackson accelerated a 30-year effort to cope with the problem by EPA career staff. We think she produced a proposed rule that would designate the ash a hazardous waste if it is dumped in pits and exempting it if it is recycled safely by, for example, incorporating it into the concrete used to build roads. We can't be sure, though, because before the rule was even published in the Federal Register for comment, it vanished into the bowels of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, the traditional killing ground for such efforts. We have no idea when it might emerge or what it will say when it does. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0AC46559-0CD0-3C38-F6315D6C70BBA03C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=05AC3E16-DAD2-5FE5-E9E91930551BF92E http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=05AC3E16-DAD2-5FE5-E9E91930551BF92E Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:09:00 EST Add arsenic to the list of carcinogenic chemicals that will see delayed regulation from EPA as a result of OMB's meddling. Last week, after almost seven years' work, EPA released a draft assessment of the bladder and lung cancer risks posed by arsenic in drinking water. But the release of the final arsenic risk assessment is being delayed while EPA's Science Advisory Board is asked to take yet another look at agency scientists' work. As Jonathan Strong wrote in InsideEPA (sub. req'd) last week, the recursive review by SAB is "emboldening" activists who want to delay any potential new drinking water regulations. Demanding external peer review of EPA scientists' work on just about anything is a standard tactic industry uses to bide time before they have to shell out the money to clean up the messes they've made. Witness Sen. David Vitter's hold on President Obama's nominee for the head of EPA's Office of Research and Development (the people responsible for IRIS assessments). Senator Vitter kept the hold on Dr. Anastas for months, until Administrator Jackson agreed to send the long-delayed formaldehyde IRIS assessment to the National Academy of Sciences for Review. That guaranteed Sen. Vitter's constituents in the formaldehyde industry at least another 18 months of regulatory delay - more, if they can pull a few choice words from NAS's eventual report and claim that they undermine the draft assessment. A Senate hold on a presidential nominee isn't the only way to ensure delay, though. Strong encouragement from people within the Executive Office of the President is another, and that's just what the opponents of arsenic regulation got. In October 2008, EPA released an early draft of the arsenic IRIS reassessment for "interagency" review. OMB weighed in, as usual, with a set of comments that ask some highly scientific questions. As we've noted many times before in this space, OIRA's small staff, with their expertise in economics and general regulatory policy and responsibility for overseeing the entire Executive Branch, should not be delving deep into the pre-regulatory science at one agency. Matt Shudtz http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=05AC3E16-DAD2-5FE5-E9E91930551BF92E