EDF Health

American Water lays out a plan for replacing lead pipes in its Indiana systems

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: February 24, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

Updated May 4, 2018: The IURC issued an order on March 7 scheduling an evidentiary hearing for May 7, 2018 at 9:30 am at its offices in Indianapolis.  In advance of the meeting, the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor,  the state agency representing taxpayers interests, filed a brief supporting Indiana American Water’s proposal to replace LSLs using ratepayer funds with six modifications.  No parties opposed the proposal.  In response, Indiana American Water accepted some but not all of the modifications.

The Indiana subsidiary of American Water Company filed a plan in January 2018 with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to fully replace lead service lines (LSLs) in the communities it serves within the next 10 to 24 years. The company estimates that 50,000 of its 300,000 customers in the state have lead pipe in a portion of the service line connecting the main under the street with the building.

The plan is the first submitted to the IURC in response to legislation enacted by the Indiana General Assembly in April 2017 and authored by Rep. Heath VanNatter. If the IURC approves the plan, the company can seek Commission approval to include LSL replacement on private property as an eligible infrastructure improvement whose costs can be covered by rates paid by customers.

With the plan, American Water is essentially embracing the goal articulated by EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council and the American Water Works Association that the United States needs to eliminate LSLs. We applaud that goal and American Water’s commitment – while it will take time to achieve, people should not be drinking water through lead pipes, even with optimal corrosion control. Read More »

Also posted in Drinking water, Lead, Public health / Tagged , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Wisconsin law removes crucial barrier to lead pipe replacement

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: February 22, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Sam Lovell, Project Specialist

Yesterday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed legislation that takes an important step to replacing the 240,000 lead service lines (LSLs) in communities across the state. SB-48 allows municipalities and water utilities to provide financial assistance to property owners to replace LSLs on private property. We described the legislation in an earlier blog – and applauded the critical work of state advocates in building support for the law.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking water, Lead / Tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

Formaldehyde delay rule – another defeat for Trump EPA

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: February 20, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

March 17, 2018 update: The court ordered EPA’s rule vacated as of June 1, 2018 based on an agreement by the parties.  This rule would have delayed the compliance deadline for the formaldehyde from composite wood products rule from 12/12/17 by one year.  The parties agreed that until March 22, 2019, products certified as compliant by the California Air Resources Board is sufficient to comply with EPA’s rule. EPA has updated its webpage to provide details. The parties reserved their right to appeal the order.

On February 16, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suffered another defeat in the courts.

In the latest case, the United States District Court for Northern California found that EPA violated the law when it gave industry a one-year delay to comply with formaldehyde emission standard for composite wood products. The standard was supposed to go into effect on December 12, 2017, one year after it was published in the Federal Register. Administrator Pruitt originally proposed a three month delay because, with the change in Administration, the agency failed to make a certification program essential to industry compliance operational, as originally planned. On September 25, 2017, the agency issued a final rule that gave a one-year extension instead, concluding that the delay “provides a balanced and reasoned timeline for importers, distributors, and regulated entities to establish compliant supply chain and comply with the [rule].” It also extended other deadlines in the rule.

Read More »

Also posted in Public health / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

New study links PFAS exposure and body weight regulation

By / Published: February 20, 2018

Ryan O’Connell is a High Meadows Fellow

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), sometimes referred to by the broader term “PFCs” (perfluorinated chemicals), are a large class of chemicals used to make products water- or grease-resistant. They can be found in everything from nonstick cookware and clothing to food packaging and adhesives. While PFAS have useful commercial and industrial applications, these chemicals also persist in the environment and in people, and a number of them have been shown to be very toxic.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Health science / Tagged | Comments are closed

No justification: Substantiations for rampant new chemical CBI claims are deficient or lacking altogether

By / Published: February 16, 2018

Stephanie Schwarz, J.D., is a Legal Fellow.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Part 1               Part 2               Part 3               Part 4

We recently started a series of blog posts describing what we did, and did not, get from the EPA Docket Center when we requested the public files on about 70 new chemicals, most of which EPA had determined were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended in 2016 by the Lautenberg Act.  To continue our series, we address in this post EPA’s pervasive failure to require companies to adequately substantiate Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, and its own apparent failure to review such claims, despite clear requirements to do so under § 14 of TSCA. [pullquote]Twenty months after passage of the Lautenberg Act, we simply must ask:  When will EPA start carrying out its new responsibilities on CBI claims – which includes compelling companies to comply with the law?[/pullquote]

First, to provide some context, let us address a question we were asked based on our first post: whether the PMN situation we are describing is any worse now than it was pre-Lautenberg Act.  We suspect it is not necessarily worse.  However, the purpose of the reforms to CBI in the Lautenberg Act was to fix these problems, by requiring substantiation and EPA review of most CBI claims, including those asserted in premanufacture notifications (PMNs) submitted for new chemicals.  By and large it appears this is simply not happening, 20 months after the law passed and those provisions took effect.

Few of the PMN public files we received included any substantiations, despite massive assertions of CBI claims that require substantiation; instead, companies simply redacted the information.  In addition, nearly all of those submissions that do include a substantiation document are wholly inadequate, routinely claiming information as CBI that is not eligible for nondisclosure or failing to provide justification for information that may be eligible.  The violations are so egregious that they indicate EPA is failing to conduct even a cursory review of the claims and redactions.   Read More »

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

EDF requests extension of illegally and unreasonably short comment period on proposed rule with incomplete docket

By / Published: February 12, 2018

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today submitted a request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the mere 15-day period EPA has provided for public comments on a proposed modification to a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).  The proposed SNUR modification was published in the Federal Register just last Thursday (February 8), and stated that comments must be received by February 23.[pullquote]EPA must comply with its own requirements and provide electronic access to a public file containing all relevant documents prior to commencing at a minimum a 30-day comment period on this proposed rule.[/pullquote]

EPA’s own regulations require EPA to provide the public with at least 30 days to comment on SNURs, see 40 CFR 721.160(c)(4) and 721.170(d)(4), making EPA’s 15-day comment period illegally short.

EDF requested that EPA provide at least 30 days for public comment – with that period to commence only after a complete public docket of relevant materials is made available by EPA.  As our request details, the docket EPA has provided for this proposed SNUR is woefully incomplete, missing even basic documents that preclude the public from being able to provide meaningful comments on the proposal.   Read More »

Also posted in Regulation, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed