As previously reported on this blog (Posts of January 22 and February 18, 2005), the National Academies of Science report on perchlorate convinced federal EPA to set a drinking-water "reference dose" of 24 ppb; but the report did nothing to quell critics who argue for standards as low as 1 ppb.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-California) has now expressly joined those critics, firing off a letter yesterday (June 8) to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson stating in part:
In February 2005 the EPA announced that it was adopting the NAS recommended RfD. This value was adopted and placed on the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database rather quickly with no further public review.
I am always delighted when a government agency moves quickly, however I have a few questions regarding how the process to establish the reference dose proceeded:
• How did the EPA come to the decision to endorse the NAS-derived RfD?
• How did the EPA determine that this level would protect public health with a reasonable margin of safety?
• Why did the EPA decide not to allow for public comment on this decision?
• Will the EPA be re-evaluating this reference dose in light of the concerns regarding the [NAS] perchlorate study?
The full text of Sen. Feinstein's letter can be found at the link above.
Ironically, Sen. Feinstein's implicit criticism of EPA's perchlorate standard would seem to lend credence to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's dissatisfaction (see Post of yesterday, June 8, 2005) with EPA's methodology in setting regulatory standards. I say "ironically", because Sen. Feinstein on the one hand is concerned EPA's perchlorate standard is too liberal, while the Chamber on the other hand is concerned EPA's various standards are too strict. Nonetheless, both the Senator and the Chamber strike a common chord of dissatisfaction with EPA's data analysis methodologies.
Many people are oeguatrd about this, and California has announced it will appeal the EPA's decision. The appeal will go to the federal appeals court in Washington, where there is a good chance the decision will be overturned.Since the EPA is an administrative agency controlled by the executive branch, it's no surprise that it doesn't do much to protect the earth when the President is taking advice on the environment from people like . Let's hope there are some positive changes in the white house after the next election.In the meantime, we can all do everything possible to work for change on a grassroots level. The little things we do make a difference, and they have ripple effects beyond the immediate benefits. For example, I ride my bike to my son's elementary school to volunteer. It saves a little gas, but more importantly, I think it has changed some attitudes. The first day I showed up carrying a bike helmet, a woman at the front desk gave me a "who are you, and WTF are you doing here?" kind of look, but now she smiles at me. The kids in my son's class know that I ride a bike even though I have a car, and they know why I do it. Every little bit helps.So vote, keep doing what you can in your own life, and don't let the blankety-blank politicians drag you down.
Posted by: Julia | June 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM