Quantcast
Channel: Environmental Protection Agency
Viewing all 129 articles
Browse latest View live

Trump did a 180 on Harvey and Irma after he was asked about climate change

$
0
0

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump on Thursday dismissed a link between climate change and the two hurricanes that recently pummeled the United States.

"We've had bigger storms than this," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One after being asked if hurricanes Harvey and Irma made him rethink his views on climate change.

"We did have two horrific storms, epic storms. But if you go back into the '30s and '40s, and you go back into the Teens, you'll see storms that were very similar and even bigger, OK?"

The comments represent a remarkable shift in tone for Trump, who in the lead-up to the two storms posted several tweets seeming to marvel at their historic size.

"Hurricane Irma is of epic proportion, perhaps bigger than we have ever seen," Trump said on Twitter last week. "Hurricane looks like largest ever recorded in the Atlantic!" he said in another tweet.

Trump was equally reverent of Hurricane Harvey:

"Many people are now saying that this is the worst storm/hurricane they have ever seen," he tweeted in late August. "Wow - Now experts are calling #Harvey a once in 500 year flood!" he added later.

In other tweets, Trump noted Harvey's "record setting" rainfall and "unprecedented" flooding.

The two hurricanes did indeed set records — Harvey dumped a record 51.9 inches of rain in one area of Texas, while Irma set records for both size and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Their landfall marked the first time two storms of Category-4 strength struck the US in the same year. Together, the storms claimed more than a hundred lives and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of damage.

Trump has long expressed skepticism about climate change and has called it a Chinese hoax.

His administration has largely followed his lead: The White House has scrubbed nearly all references to climate change from its website, as have various other government agencies.

Meanwhile, Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, told the Miami Herald on Monday that it was "insensitive" to discuss climate change in the wake of Hurricane Irma.

“To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced," Pruitt said. "To use time and effort to address it at this point is very, very insensitive to this people in Florida."

Environmental scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change contributes to heightened storm surge and flooding during hurricanes, and that human-caused global warming leads to more frequent extreme-weather events.

SEE ALSO: Trump can't stop marveling at the size of Hurricane Harvey on Twitter

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'


EPA cancels appearance by scientists at climate change conference

$
0
0

FILE PHOTO - Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), speaks to employees of the agency in Washington, U.S., February 21, 2017.      REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has canceled plans for three of its scientists to speak on climate change at a conference in Rhode Island on Monday, an official said on Sunday.

Tom Borden, program director for the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, confirmed that the EPA had on Friday canceled the appearance by two employees and an EPA consultant. No other EPA staff or affiliates are now scheduled to speak at the event.

The New York Times first reported the cancellations on Sunday.

The EPA gave "no specific reason" for why the scientists were not allowed to speak, Borden said. The topics of the conference had not changed, he added.

The EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program is one of 28 such programs funded by the EPA, according to the EPA's website. The organization is due to release a report on the state of the Narragansett Bay watershed and estuary on Monday.

The three scientists scheduled to speak included Autumn Oczkowski, an EPA research ecologist, who was due to deliver the keynote address at the meeting in Providence.

Rose Martin, an EPA postdoctoral fellow, and Emily Shumchenia, an EPA consultant, were due to speak on a panel about the biological implications of climate change, according to a program of the event published on Oct. 4.

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has repeatedly expressed doubts about climate change and under his leadership the agency has moved to undo dozens of Obama-era climate regulations, including Obama's Clean Power Plan aimed at combating global warming.

 

(Reporting by Alwyn Scott; editing by Diane Craft)

SEE ALSO: Scott Pruitt is ending an EPA policy known as 'sue and settle' to give green groups less power

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

The EPA may ban some scientists from its independent advisory boards

$
0
0

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks during an interview for Reuters at his office in Washington, U.S., July 10, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

  • Scientists who won EPA research grants under previous presidential administrations may soon be barred from serving on the agency's independent advisory panels.
  • The move could make it easier to install industry-friendly advisors on the panels and weaken pollution and climate regulations.
  • EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, openly rejects mainstream climate science and data that shows human activity is a primary driver of global warming.


The US Environmental Protection Agency will announce on Tuesday it will bar certain scientists from serving on its independent advisory boards, according to people familiar with the plan, a move critics say could open the way to more industry-friendly advisors on the panels.

The EPA will bar scientists who have won agency-awarded grants in the past, billing the step as a way to preserve the independence of the boards, which provide the scientific input for agency decisions around pollution and climate change regulation.

An EPA spokesman declined to comment.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signaled the move during a speech last week at the conservative Heritage Foundation, when he questioned the independence of scientists who have won past EPA research grants, and promised to "fix" the situation.

During his election campaign last year, Republican President Donald Trump promised to roll back environmental regulations from Democratic President Barack Obama's administration, including those limiting carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming, to make government more friendly to the drilling, mining, and manufacturing businesses.

The advisory boards were created by Congress to serve as a check on EPA policies and research. They include the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Board of Scientific Counselors.

Last year, the SAB questioned an EPA report that concluded that hydraulic fracturing — an oil- and gas-drilling technology that frees petroleum from underground shale formations — had no "widespread impacts" on drinking water despite evidence of problems in several states.

In June, Pruitt decided not to renew the terms of nine members of a separate body, the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors. One of those members, Michigan State University professor of community sustainability Robert Richardson, told Reuters the move came as a surprise because the work they were doing was "apolitical."

The EPA is also expected to announce three new members of the Clean Air advisory committee on Tuesday.

Pruitt is an outspoken doubter of mainstream climate science, a consensus of scientists that carbon dioxide from human use of fossil fuels is a primary driver of global warming, triggering more frequent volatile storms, sea level rise, and droughts.

Pruitt has said he wants to set up a televised debate about the science of climate change between scientists who believe it is driven by humans and those that do not.

Editing by Frances Kerry

SEE ALSO: The EPA just delayed 30 environmental regulations created under Obama — here's what that means

DON'T MISS: Incredible satellite photos show Texas before and after Harvey flooded the region

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A climate change skeptic is leading Trump's EPA transition — but these charts prove that climate change is very real

The Trump Administration has been quietly removing content from federal websites — here's the before and after

$
0
0

climate change trump removal

 

The Trump Administration is quietly changing things on .gov websites — and a group of academics and non-profits is keeping track.

The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) released a new report on Wednesday that details how references to our changing climate and greenhouse gases have been erased from federal webpages since President Donald Trump took office. 

But new side-by-side comparisons from EDGI provide a kind of virtual trip back in time to the web before Trump took office, shedding light on the subtle ways that the administration is making it harder to track down information about climate change and alternative energy sources online.

However, the group also said that climate research and data does not seem to be getting totally scrapped from online government archives, and federally funded reporting on climate change continues. In November, the administration signed off on a report from federal scientists saying that "there is no convincing alternative explanation" for the "continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean."

Nonetheless, these snapshots reveal what's missing from the updated federal websites:

SEE ALSO: The Trump administration is removing Florida from its offshore drilling plan because the state is 'obviously unique' — and other coastal states are furious

Some of the changes on the web mirror federal policy shifts since Trump took office. For example, The Bureau of Land Management says 'clean and renewable energy' isn't a priority anymore.

The BLM website used to say that the agency was focused on "energy for today and tomorrow" and "leading the way in allowing for orderly, environmentally responsible development" of sun, wind, and geothermal energy sources.

You can see the old page here, thanks to the Wayback Machine. 

Today, the same page says the US favors an "all of the above" energy approach: "The BLM supports the America First Energy Plan, which includes oil and gas, coal, strategic minerals, and renewable energy resources such as wind, geothermal and solar," the website reads. 

The top priority listed on the BLM website now is "making America safe through energy independence." 



Some content has been completely scrapped from official sites. This old part of the Environmental Protection Agency's website no longer exists:

The deleted content isn't just educational.

Vital information that state officials and experts could use to respond to flooding, hurricanes, and other natural disasters is no longer easily accessible on the web, EDGI says.

For example, plans the EPA drew up for "climate change adaptation"— including advice about how to prepare for flooding and get protection from toxic chemical exposure —are much harder to find now. 

Most of these things are still available on archived federal pages. (You can access the old version of the page shown above here.) But not everything is still in those records.



Some educational materials have been taken down completely, like this old EPA page for kids:

"Of all agencies, the EPA has removed the most climate web content," the EDGI report says.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

There are alarm bells at the White House amid the latest controversy involving Trump's EPA chief

$
0
0

Scott Pruitt

  • White House officials are reportedly concerned about the living arrangement of Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief.
  • Pruitt was found to be paying $50 a night to stay in an apartment owned by a Washington lobbyist.
  • The EPA's ethics official said the arrangement was fine because Pruitt was paying rent.

White House officials are "dismayed" over questions surrounding Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's living arrangement, Bloomberg reported Friday.

Pruitt's Washington, DC, apartment is owned by a lobbyist friend, and his lease allowed him to pay $50 a night for a single bedroom — a bargain for the DC area.

Bloomberg reported that Pruitt was initially unable to provide documents regarding his lease and payments he made to the lobbyist, three administration officials told the publication. His landlord eventually provided EPA officials with the lease and proof of payments Pruitt made.

These questions follow previous concerns about trips Pruitt took, including one in which he spent more than $120,000 in taxpayer money on a trip to Italy that included meeting G-7 ministers and visiting the Vatican. More than $90,000 was spent on food, hotels, airfare, and a military jet used by Pruitt and his staff.

Similar travel practices led Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price to resign late last year. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have also come under scrutiny for some of their spending practices.

Bloomberg found that Pruitt paid $6,100 over six months to stay in the single room in a two-bedroom apartment, paying only for nights he slept in the unit. The apartment owner is Vicki Hart, a healthcare lobbyist whose husband, J. Steven Hart, is a lobbyist whose firm represents clients who have a stake in the EPA's regulatory measure.

The EPA's ethics counsel Justina Fugh, who has been at the position for a dozen years, told Bloomberg that the arrangement was a nonissue because Pruitt paid rent.

SEE ALSO: If Trump wants to take a shot at Amazon, there's a potential billion-dollar deal staring him right in the face

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

Fox News anchor grills EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over lobbyist-connected condo scandal

$
0
0

scott pruitt

  • EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said his deal for a $50 per night condo in Washington, DC was not a breach of ethics.
  • Pruitt also addressed the report detailing how an official went around the White House to give two staffers salary increases, denying knowledge of the deal.

In a tense interview with Fox News, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt addressed the recent scandals plaguing his office, brushing aside criticisms that he improperly rented a condo in Washington, DC.

"This was like an Airbnb situation," Pruitt said. "When I was not there, the landlord, they had access to the entirety of the facility. When I was there, I only had access to a room."

Pruitt had been renting a condo co-owned by the wife of a connected lobbyist in the fossil fuels industry while serving as head of the EPA. In addition, the Daily Beast reported that the landlord of the condo had donated to Pruitt's campaign for Oklahoma attorney general in 2010.

Pruitt also addressed a recent report from The Atlantic detailing how an official under his watch at the EPA went around the White House to give significant pay raises to two EPA employees.

When Pruitt asked the White House to give increased pay to two of his aides, the request was denied. Another official at the EPA then used an obscure provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act to bypass the White House and give the two aides bumps in their salary.

"So, hang on. Both of these staffers who got these large pay raises are friends of yours. I believe from Oklahoma right?" Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked Pruitt.

Pruitt said that "they are staffers here in the agency" and "they serve a very important purpose."

When Henry pressed Pruitt as to whether he was aware of the salary increases, the EPA administrator said he "did not know that they got pay raises until yesterday."

"My staff and I found out about it yesterday and I changed it," Pruitt added. "I found out this yesterday and I corrected the action and we are in the process of finding out how it took place and correcting it."

SEE ALSO: Trump is raging that 'DACA is dead' while ignoring his rejection of bipartisan deals that would have saved it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

Activists troll Scott Pruitt with posters across Washington amid brutal week of burgeoning scandals

$
0
0

scott pruitt

  • Protesters covered Washington, DC, with fake listings for a "luxury condo" to mock one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's most recent scandals.
  • The posters also left a phone number for the EPA's communications office.

WASHINGTON — Environmental activists plastered the nation's capital on Friday with hundreds of posters offering a cheap luxury condo, mocking embattled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.

Posters depicting a listing to "live luxuriously for cheap — just like Scott!" were placed all over Washington overnight. The posters also included small ticket stubs to inquire about the "luxury condo," with a phone number leading to the EPA's communications office.

Scott Pruitt posters covered Washington, D.C. on Friday, April 6, 2018.

The activist group Friends of Earth claimed credit for the stunt, according to The Hill, a Washington-based news website.

"Americans are fed up with Scott Pruitt. He’s wasting their tax dollars on his luxurious lifestyle, giving handouts to corporate polluters and poisoning our air and water," said Lukas Ross, who represents Friends of Earth.

"Activists around the country are increasing pressure to seek the removal of Scott Pruitt. And as Trump refuses to act, Congress must," Ross added. "We will not back off until Congress steps up."

The posters are in reference to one of several scandals plaguing Pruitt — that he improperly rented a luxury condo on Capitol Hill for just $50 per night. 

Pruitt defended the rental in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, saying it was "like an Airbnb situation."

"When I was not there, the landlord, they had access to the entirety of the facility," Pruitt said. "When I was there, I only had access to a room."

On Thursday, President Donald Trump said he thinks Pruitt has "done a fantastic job" amid questions surrounding his future in the administration.

"I think he’s done an incredible job. He’s been very courageous. It hasn’t been easy, but I think he’s done a fantastic job," Trump said.

When asked by reporters aboard Air Force One what he thought of the scandals swirling around the EPA chief, Trump said, "I have to look at them," adding, "I’ll make that determination. But he’s a good man, he’s done a terrific job. But I’ll take a look at it."

SEE ALSO: Republicans might need to start panicking about a key Senate seat in a deep-red state

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

A nuclear explosion in the US is a real possibility. Here are the scripts government officials might use if it ever happens.

$
0
0

nuclear bomb explosion blast city shutterstock_404953870

The US government prepares for all sorts of threats, ranging from biowarfare and chemical weapons to volcanoes and wildfires.

But none match the specter of a nuclear explosion.

A small nuclear weapon on the ground can create a stadium-size fireball, unleash a city-crippling blastwave, and sprinkle radioactive fallout hundreds of miles away.

The good news is that the Cold War is over and a limited nuclear strike or a terrorist attack can be survivable (a direct hit notwithstanding). The bad news: A new arms race is likely underway— and one that may add small, portable nuclear weapons to the global stockpile. Lawmakers and experts fear such "tactical" or battlefield-ready devices (and their parts) may be easier for terrorists to obtain via theft or sale.

"Terrorist use of an actual nuclear bomb is a low-probability event — but the immensity of the consequences means that even a small chance is enough to justify an intensive effort to reduce the risk," the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said in a September 2017 article, which outlines what might happen after terrorists detonate a crude device that yields a 10-kiloton, near-Hiroshima-size explosion in a city.

A nuclear terrorist attack of this magnitude is one of 15 major disaster scenarios planned for by FEMA and other US agencies. (The same scenario also includes a dirty bomb explosion, though such an event would be dramatically less harmful.)

As part of the planning effort, the Environmental Protection Agency maintains a series of manuals about how state and local governments should respond. A companion document anticipates 99 likely questions during a radiation emergency — and scripted messages that officials can copy or adapt.

"Ideally, these messages never will be needed," the EPA says in its messaging document. "[N]evertheless, we have a responsibility to be prepared to empower the public by effectively communicating how people can protect themselves and their families in the event of a radiological or nuclear emergency."

Here are a handful of the questions the EPA anticipates in the event of a nuclear emergency, parts of statements you might hear or see in response, and why officials would say them.

SEE ALSO: If a nuclear weapon is about to explode, here's what a safety expert says you can do to survive

DON'T MISS: These maps show how much damage a North Korean thermonuclear weapon could do to major American cities

"What will happen to people in the affected neighborhoods?"

What they'll say: "As appropriate: Lives have been lost, people have been injured, and homes and businesses have been destroyed. All levels of government are coordinating their efforts to do everything possible to help the people affected by this emergency. As lifesaving activities continue, follow the instructions from emergency responders... The instructions are based on the best information we have right now; the instructions will be updated as more information becomes available."

Why: The worst thing to do in an emergency is panic, make rash decisions, and endanger your life and the lives of others. However, it's also incumbent on officials to be truthful. The first messages will aim to keep people calm yet informed and as safe as possible.



"What is radioactive material?"

What they'll say: "Radioactive material is a substance that gives off radiation in the form of energy waves or energized particles."

Why: Nuclear bombs split countless atoms in an instant to unleash a terrifying amount of energy. About 15% of the energy is nuclear radiation, and too much exposure can damage the body's cells and healing ability, leading to a life-threatening condition called acute radiation sickness.

Without advanced warning, people can do little about the energy waves, also called gamma radiation, which are invisible and travel at light-speed. But the energized particles — including radioactive fission products or fallout — travel more slowly, giving people time to seek shelter. The particles can also be washed off.



"Where is the radioactive material located?"

What they'll say: "Radiation and environmental health experts are checking air, water and ground conditions in and around the release site to locate the areas with radioactive contamination. Stay tuned to radio or television, or visit [INSERT AGENCY WEBSITE HERE] for the latest information."

Why: If a nuclear bomb goes off near the ground (which is likely in a terrorist attack), the explosion will suck up debris, irradiate it, and spread it around as fallout. Some of this material rapidly decays, emitting gamma and other forms of radiation in the process.

Fallout is most concentrated near a blast site. However, hot air from a nuclear fireball pushes finer-grade material high into the atmosphere, where strong winds can blow it more than 100 miles away. It may take days for radiation workers to track where all of it went, to what extent, and which food and water supplies it possibly contaminated.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Two of Scott Pruitt's closest aides resigned from the EPA after receiving steep pay raises that were rejected by the White House

$
0
0

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt

  • Two of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt's top aides — both of whom had received large and controversial pay raises — are resigning this week. 
  • Sarah Greenwalt, Pruitt's 30-year-old senior counsel, and Millan Hupp, the 26-year-old director of scheduling and advance, are the latest in a string of top staffers to leave the agency.
  • Both aides received steep pay raises that were reportedly obtained through a legal loophole after the White House refused to approve them. 

Two of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt's top aides are resigning amid fresh controversies stemming from the administrator's leadership. 

Sarah Greenwalt, Pruitt's 30-year-old senior counsel, and Millan Hupp, the agency's 26-year-old director of scheduling and advance, are the latest in a string of top staffers to leave the EPA, The Atlantic and The New York Times reported Wednesday. 

Hupp made headlines this week after reports emerged that she told congressional investigators that she spent months scouting a new DC apartment for Pruitt, scheduled his family vacations, and even looked into buying him a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel — all during work hours.

A top agency official told The Atlantic that Hupp is "tired of being thrown under the bus by Pruitt" and concerned about the amount of media attention she has received. Hupp's last day will be Friday. 

Pruitt is currently under a dozen separate investigations into possible ethical violations, including those related to his regular first-class flights and copious spending on his personal security.

Hupp and Greenwalt, both part of a tightly-knit group of top aides Pruitt brought with him from Oklahoma, also found themselves at the center of controversy earlier this spring, after The Atlantic reported that the two received steep pay raises without White House approval. Greenwalt received a raise of over $66,000, bringing her salary to $164,200, and Hupp had her pay bumped from $86,460 to $114,590.

After the Presidential Personnel Office reportedly refused to sign off on the proposed pay hikes, the agency approved the raises through a backdoor provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows the administrator to hire up to 30 employees without White House or congressional approval in areas of critical need.

According to internal emails reported on by The Atlantic on April 9, Greenwalt insisted that Pruitt personally sanctioned her raise.

Greenwalt "definitively stated that Pruitt approves and was supportive of her getting a raise," an administration official who had seen the emails told The Atlantic.

In an April 9 statement, Jackson said Pruitt was not aware of the amount the staffers' salaries were being raised by, nor was he aware of the process through which they were implemented. But Jackson did not say that Pruitt was unaware that the raises were being given.

"Administrator Pruitt had zero knowledge of the amount of the raises, nor the process by which they transpired," Jackson said in his statement. "These kind of personnel actions are handled by myself, EPA's HR officials and PPO."

But if Pruitt was in fact unaware of the raises, he may have violated the law, as the administrator is required to approve all hiring and salary changes under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that Hupp's sister, Sydney Hupp, who previously worked as a scheduler for Pruitt at the EPA, tried to organize a call between Pruitt and the president of fast-food chain Chick-fil-A to discuss Pruitt's wife's interest in opening a Chick-fil-A franchise. 

The revelation generated new concerns that Pruitt has used his government position for personal gain. 

SEE ALSO: Scott Pruitt gave his aides $66K and $48K raises — and now he's changing his story about it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

Video shows a woman confronting EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in a Washington, DC restaurant

$
0
0

kristin mink scott pruitt

  • A woman confronted the EPA administrator Scott Pruitt at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on Monday. Video of the encounter was posted on Facebook.
  • In the video, the woman read from a list of notes, criticizing Pruitt for the manner in which he has used taxpayer money while in his role at the EPA, and accused him of failing to protect the environment.
  • "I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out," the woman said before the video ended.

A woman confronted EPA administrator Scott Pruitt at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on Monday, in the latest encounter between a member of the public and a Trump administration official.

Video of the incident was posted on Facebook, showing the woman, who identifies herself on her Facebook profile as Kristin Mink, criticizing Pruitt for decisions he has made at the EPA, and accusing him of failing to protect the environment.

"We deserve to have someone at the EPA who actually does protect our environment; someone who actually does believe in climate change and actually takes it seriously for the benefit of all of us, including our children," Mink said.

"So, I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out," she added. Pruitt can be seen listening to Mink silently. The video ends shortly after she finished speaking. Mink says Pruitt left the restaurant before she returned to her seat.

Watch the encounter below:

Pruitt has been at the center of multiple scandals at the EPA since the Senate confirmed the Trump appointee in early 2017. The latest unflattering news surrounding Pruitt emerged on Monday with a CNN report in which a whistleblower claimed Pruitt kept "secret" calendars to hide "controversial meetings" and calls with industry representatives.

donald trump scott pruitt

President Donald Trump has remained publicly supportive of Pruitt, despite the EPA chief's scandals.

The confrontation on Monday follows similar encounters between Trump administration officials and the public in recent weeks. A crowd heckled Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a restaurant last month, at the height of the turmoil over the administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

Trump adviser Stephen Miller reportedly faced similar treatment days earlier. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she was asked to leave a restaurant in Virginia because of her affiliation with Trump.

California Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters capitalized on the growing dissent last month, calling on people to stare down Trump administration officials in public and "tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

SEE ALSO: When do Republicans start to bail on Scott Pruitt? When Trump finally starts to care

DON'T MISS: Donald Trump can't destroy the fabric of our nation alone. Democrat Maxine Waters just signed up to help him

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

Democrats want an investigation into Scott Pruitt's 'secret calendars'

$
0
0

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, listens to a question during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, May 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. The Subcommittee is hearing testimony on the proposed budget estimates for FY2019 for the Environmental Protection Agency. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

  • Democrats have asked the EPA's inspector general to investigate Scott Pruitt's office for creating "secret calendars" that allegedly concealed events and meetings.
  • The lawmakers want to probe whether the scrubbing of information from calendars violated federal records-keeping laws.

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers are pushing the inspector general's office to investigate whether Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt may have violated the Federal Records Act with the use of "secret calendars" meant to conceal parts of his day-to-day operations.

In a Tuesday report from CNN, Pruitt's former deputy chief of staff for operations, Kevin Chmielewski, alleged that staffers at the EPA regularly convened to "scrub" unflattering meetings and events from Pruitt's official calendar to avoid bad appearances.

"We would have meetings what we were going to take off on the official schedule. We had at one point three different schedules. One of them was one that no one else saw except three or four of us," Chmielewski told CNN. "It was a secret ... and they would decide what to nix from the public calendar."

In a letter obtained by Business Insider, Reps. Don Beyer of Virginia and Ted Lieu of California are requesting the inspector general probe into what could be major violations of federal records-keeping laws.

"Willful concealment or destruction of such records is a federal crime carrying penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment," the two Democrats wrote.

"Congress established and updated these laws because the American people deserve to know how their government is operated, and who is exerting influence over determinations which affect them," they added. "We ask that you protect that public trust and establish whether Administrator Scott Pruitt violated the Federal Records Act, and if so, determine what he concealed and why. Further, we ask that you take the appropriate steps to hold him accountable for such actions, as required by law."

Pruitt has been at the center of numerous scandals during tenure at the EPA. Still, the responses from the White House and Republicans in Congress have remained fairly tepid. Republicans have signaled they would not call for Pruitt's ouster unless President Donald Trump does so first, which does not appear likely anytime soon.

SEE ALSO: Conservatives groups are going all in to confirm Trump's Supreme Court pick — which could upend the effort to hold the House in 2018

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigns amid scandal

$
0
0

Scott Pruitt

  • President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that his embattled Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, had resigned.
  • Pruitt has for months faced increasing pressure to resign amid numerous reports about his ethically questionable leadership of the agency.
  • Pruitt joins a long list of senior officials who have either been fired or resigned from the Trump administration. 

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that his embattled Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, had resigned.

In a series of tweets, the president thanked Pruitt for his service and announced that Andy Wheeler, the EPA's deputy head who was formerly a coal lobbyist and Senate staffer, would take over as acting administrator.

"I have accepted the resignation of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency," Trump said. "Within the Agency Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this."

He continued: "I have no doubt that Andy will continue on with our great and lasting EPA agenda. We have made tremendous progress and the future of the EPA is very bright!"

In a resignation letter made public shortly after Trump's tweets, Pruitt said that the decision to resign was a difficult one but that the "unrelenting attacks" on him and his family forced him to leave the role.

"It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also, because of the transformative work that is occurring," he wrote. "However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us."

Pruitt, now the shortest-serving chief in the EPA's history, lavished praise on the president and argued that he had been able to advance Trump's agenda "beyond what anyone anticipated at the beginning" of his administration.

"I believe you are serving as President today because of God's providence," Pruitt said in the letter. "I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people."

Eric Lipton, a New York Times reporter who has covered Pruitt extensively, pushed back on Pruitt's suggestion that the negative reports on his leadership were personal.

"Not a single story we wrote about Scott Pruitt and his tenure at the EPA-by me or my colleagues at The NYT-was personal," Lipton tweeted. "It was about transparency, accountability, & governance. Pruitt likes to call it 'The Rule of Law' He just gave us an enormous amt of material to write about."

Pruitt is the subject of at least 13 federal investigations into his behavior and decision-making at the agency, including those related to his frequent first-class flights and copious spending on personal security. Both Democrats and Republicans have urged Pruitt to resign amid months of scandalous reports of potential ethics violations.

Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general, was one of the most controversial members of the Trump administration and brought a deeply conservative agenda to the agency. A climate-change skeptic, Pruitt has close ties to the fossil-fuel industry and spent years suing the EPA over policies he argued constituted federal overreach, including ozone and methane-emissions rules and coal-plant regulations.

The administrator's resignation was celebrated by his critics on Thursday. He joins a long list of senior officials who have either been fired or resigned from the Trump administration.

"Good bye Scott Pruitt, the worst Administrator in EPA history and perhaps the word cabinet member ever," said Richard Painter, President George W. Bush's chief ethics lawyer. "Fake science, fake ethics and fake religion (complete with a cultish theology of planet destruction) all rolled into one."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a top government watchdog, released a one-word statement in response to Pruitt's resignation.

"Good," the group said.

A long list of ethics scandals

News reporting and federal investigations into Pruitt's practices at the EPA have exposed an array of allegations of abuses, some of which are listed below:

SEE ALSO: Scott Pruitt had staffers book hotels on their personal credit cards and then never paid them back

DON'T MISS: Video shows a woman confronting EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in a Washington, DC restaurant

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

Scott Pruitt sent a bizarre, unapologetic resignation letter to Trump

$
0
0

scott pruitt

  • The embattled, and now former, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt delivered a resignation letter that was both unapologetic and clear about one thing: he served President Donald Trump.
  • Trump announced Pruitt's departure on Thursday, after months of scandal surrounding Pruitt's behavior at the environmental agency.
  • In his resignation letter, Pruitt made no mention of the turmoil that engulfed the agency under his leadership and described the criticism he faced as personal attacks.

Scott Pruitt, the now-former EPA administrator who resigned on Thursday following a string of scandals surrounding his behavior at the agency, delivered a goodbye letter that unequivocally declared where his loyalty was.

"It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role," Pruitt's letter reads, addressing President Donald Trump. In another sentence, Pruitt says, "I count it a blessing to be serving you in any capacity."

Later in the letter, Pruitt pleads to Trump: "I pray that as I have served you, that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people."

Pruitt has received fierce criticism over his management at the EPA, and his use of taxpayer funds to pay for extravagant travel and other expenses. He is at the center of more than a dozen investigations as a result.

Pruitt's resignation letter also says nothing of the multiple scandals related to his tenure at the EPA, or that the public had lost faith in him. The latter point was made clear last week, when a mother approached Pruitt at a restaurant, with her child on her arm, and told Pruitt: "I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out."

SEE ALSO: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigns amid scandal

DON'T MISS: Video shows a woman confronting EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in a Washington, DC restaurant

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un 'is a terrorist'

What to know about Andrew Wheeler, who will take Scott Pruitt's place as acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency

$
0
0

pruitt

  • After months of ethics scandals, Scott Pruitt resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday.
  • In a series of tweets, President Donald Trump announced Pruitt's resignation and said deputy EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler would take his place for now.
  • Wheeler is a former coal lobbyist, and some experts think he could be more effective at undoing environmental protections than Pruitt was. 


After months of ethical and financial scandals, Scott Pruitt has resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Pruitt's long list of scandals included reportedly sending his staffers out in search of pricey beauty creams, spending high sums on first-class flights, instituting a 24-hour security detail, and purchasing an infamously expensive $43,000 phone booth, all on the public's dime. 

President Donald Trump tweeted on Thursday that Pruitt had done an "outstanding" job leading the EPA, and that deputy administrator Andrew Wheeler will become acting administrator of the EPA starting Monday. 

"He was very much an early Trump supporter," Trump told reporters on Air Force One, referring to Wheeler. "He was with us on the campaign. He is a very environmental person. He’s a big believer, and he’s going to do a fantastic job."

Pruitt's agenda for the EPA involved delays and rollbacks of previously enacted environmental regulations, so environmentalists cautiously cheered his resignation while expressing concern about Wheeler.

"While we applaud Pruitt’s departure, our focus now shifts to acting administrator and coal industry crony Andrew Wheeler," Erich Pica, president of the environmental organization Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "Fossil fuel industry insiders have no business leading the EPA and we will hold Wheeler accountable for his efforts to harm our public health and environment." 

Wheeler's path to the EPA

Wheeler, a Washington University law school graduate, spent the first four years of his career at the EPA under presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. At that time, he was a special assistant in the Pollution Prevention and Toxics office, working on issues involving pollution and chemicals.

Since then, Wheeler has zig-zagged between lobbying Capitol Hill and working inside the halls of the federal government. On the lobbying side, he has worked for big names in the beltway energy sector, including Murray Energy (coal), Domestic Energy Solutions Group, Whirlpool Corporation, Xcel Energy and at least a dozen others, which ProPublica lists online.

Most recently, Wheeler worked for law firm Faegre Baker Daniels as an attorney, consultant, and co-chair of the firm's Energy and Natural Resources Industry team, according to Wheeler's EPA biography.

On the governement side, Wheeler has worked as chief of staff for Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and on staff for Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) as well.

He held several roles on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from 2003 to 2009: majority staff director, minority staff director, and chief counsel.

andrew wheeler EPAAccording to a biography posted on ProPublica's website, Wheeler worked on "every major piece of environmental and energy-related legislation before Congress for over a decade." 

For example, he worked for the Committee on Environment and Public Works when the Clear Skies Act of 2003 was proposed, which aimed to reduce restrictions on toxins in the air. He was also there for the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which raised taxes on oil and gas producers in the US.

Wheeler doesn't deny the scientific facts of climate change, but said during his confirmation hearing that the human impact on the Earth's rising temperature is "not completely understood," as Inside Climate News reported. 

Scott Segal, a fossil fuel lobbyist who has worked with Wheeler, told The New York Times: "He’s a careful, studious person. A quiet fellow. He knows the agency very, very well."

Many environmentalists are fearful about what that savvy perspective might mean for the future of the EPA. The agency is tasked with protecting the nation's air and water, but the Trump administration has pushed to undo a host of environmental regulations

Jeremy Symons, vice president for political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund, put it bluntly to Politico

"Wheeler is much smarter and will try to keep his efforts under the radar in implementing Trump’s destructive agenda," Symons said, comparing Wheeler to Pruitt. "That should scare anyone who breathes."

SEE ALSO: There's even more evidence that coffee is good for your heart — and 4 cups a day might be the ideal amount

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Most affluent investors would rather go to the dentist than invest in a company that hurts the environment

9 noteworthy environmental protections Scott Pruitt was working to roll back at the EPA before his departure

$
0
0

scott pruitt

  • Scott Pruitt, the Trump-nominated EPA administrator, has resigned in the wake of a long list of scandals.
  • Pruitt was in the process of trying to roll back more than 30 environmental protections, including regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, clean water, and dangerous pesticide use.
  • It's likely that acting administrator Andrew Wheeler will continue with a similar agenda.


Trump-nominated EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is out, but it's likely his legacy of rolling back environmental protections will continue.

On July 5, President Trump announced that he had accepted Pruitt's resignation, which came in the wake of a laundry list of scandals.

Pruitt was facing over a dozen federal investigations for his behavior and the decisions he made as EPA Administrator. He faced inquiries about installing a $43,000 secure phone booth without informing Congress; spending millions on a 24-hour security detail that was more that triple the size of security details for previous administrators; and spending staggering amounts of money on travel and office upgrades.

The list kept growing — in recent days, CNN reported that Pruitt had his official calendar scrubbed and used secret calendars to keep track of meetings.

Amidst all the scandal, Pruitt still pushed for rapid widespread rollbacks of protections that many scientists consider essential for human and environmental health, instead favoring the fossil fuel industry.

Legal experts say that Pruitt's deputy, Andrew Wheeler, a former coal-industry lobbyist who is now acting administrator of the EPA, will continue with a similar agenda. As Trump tweeted, announcing that he'd accepted the resignation, "I have no doubt that Andy will continue on with our great and lasting EPA agenda. We have made tremendous progress and the future of the EPA is very bright!"

As The New Yorker reported, Pruitt "proposed repealing or delaying more than thirty significant environmental rules" in his first year on the job.

These are some of the most significant environmental protections Pruitt was in the process of eliminating — and which Wheeler could continue rolling back.

Environmental protections Pruitt was working to roll back

Documerica

Stymied by courts, but likely to continue

As The New York Times has reported, a number of these regulation rollbacks were enacted so swiftly that they have been unable to hold up in court. Several have been struck down, including the rules on lead paint listed above. Courts also told the EPA that they had to enforce a rule requiring companies to monitor for methane leaks, even if they were reconsidering the regulation.

Former colleagues of Wheeler and legal experts told The New York Times that now-acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will be more effective at rolling back environmental protections than Pruitt. Wheeler is reportedly a protege of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who once brought a snowball onto the Senate floor in an effort to disprove global warming.

"[Wheeler] will be similar to Pruitt in terms of the agenda — he understands the Trump administration and will carry out the agenda," Matthew Dempsey, a former colleague of Wheeler's who works with an energy lobbying firm told the Times. "But he's been around Washington a long time. He knows how D.C. works and he does things by the book."

SEE ALSO: Vintage photos taken by the EPA reveal what America looked like before pollution was regulated

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Astronomers just discovered 12 new moons around Jupiter


Troubling report finds toxins are turning up in dozens of public water systems across the US

$
0
0

Environmental Protection Agency

  • Toxins are turning up in dozens of public water systems across the United States, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and Delaware, according to a report by the AP.
  • The water systems are reportedly testing positive for dangerous levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
  • Dumped into water, the air or soil, some forms of PFAS compounds are expected to remain intact for thousands of years; one public-health expert dubbed them "forever chemicals."


HORSHAM, Pa. (AP) — Lauren Woeher wonders if her 16-month-old daughter has been harmed by tap water contaminated with toxic industrial compounds used in products like nonstick cookware, carpets and fast-food wrappers.

Henry Betz, at 76, rattles around his house alone at night, thinking about the water his family unknowingly drank for years that was tainted by the same contaminants, and the pancreatic cancers that killed wife Betty Jean and two others in his household.

Tim Hagey, manager of a local water utility, recalls how he used to assure people that the local public water was safe. That was before testing showed it had some of the highest levels of the toxic compounds of any public water system in the US.

"You all made me out to be a liar," Hagey, general water and sewer manager in the eastern Pennsylvania town of Warminster, told Environmental Protection Agency officials last month.

At "community engagement sessions" like the one in Horsham, residents and state, local and military officials are demanding that the EPA act quickly — and decisively — to clean up local water systems testing positive for dangerous levels of the chemicals, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

The Trump administration called the contamination "a potential public relations nightmare" earlier this year after federal toxicology studies found that some of the compounds are more hazardous than previously acknowledged.

PFAS have been in production since the 1940s, and there are about 3,500 different types. Dumped into water, the air or soil, some forms of the compounds are expected to remain intact for thousands of years; one public-health expert dubbed them "forever chemicals."

EPA testing from 2013 to 2015 found significant amounts of PFAS in public water supplies in 33 US states. The finding helped move PFAS up as a national priority.

So did scientific studies that firmed up the health risks. One, looking at a kind of PFAS once used in making Teflon, found a probable link with kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypertension in pregnant women and high cholesterol.

Other recent studies point to immune problems in children, among other things.

In 2016, the EPA set advisory limits — without any direct enforcement — for two kinds of PFAS that had recently been phased out of production in the United States. But manufacturers are still producing, and releasing into the air and water, newer versions of the compounds.

Earlier this year, federal toxicologists decided that even the EPA's 2016 advisory levels for the two phased-out versions of the compound were several times too high for safety.

EPA says it will prepare a national management plan for the compounds by the end of the year. But Peter Grevatt, director of the agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, told The Associated Press that there's no deadline for a decision on possible regulatory actions.

Reviews of the data, and studies to gather more, are ongoing.

'I know that you can't bring back 3 people that I lost. But they're gone.'

Horsham, Pennsylvania

Even as the Trump administration says it advocates for clean air and water, it is ceding more regulation to the states and putting a hold on some regulations seen as burdensome to business.

In Horsham and surrounding towns in eastern Pennsylvania, and at other sites around the United States, the foams once used routinely in firefighting training at military bases contained PFAS.

"I know that you can't bring back three people that I lost," Betz, a retired airman, told the federal officials at the Horsham meeting. "But they're gone."

State lawmakers complained of "a lack of urgency and incompetency" on the part of EPA.

"It absolutely disgusts me that the federal government would put PR concerns ahead of public health concerns," Republican state Rep. Todd Stephens declared.

After the meeting, Woeher questioned why it took so long to tell the public about the dangers of the compounds.

"They knew they had seeped into the water, and they didn't tell anybody about it until it was revealed and they had to," she said.

Speaking at her home with her toddler nearby, she asked, "Is this something that, you know, I have to worry? It's in her."

While contamination of drinking water around military bases and factories gets most of the attention, the EPA says 80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home.

The chemical industry says it believes the versions of the nonstick, stain-resistant compounds in use now are safe, in part because they don't stay in the body as long as older versions.

"As an industry today ... we're very forthcoming meeting any kind of regulatory requirement to disclose any kind of adverse data," said Jessica Bowman, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council trade group.

Independent academics and government regulators say they don't fully share the industry's expressed confidence about the safety of PFAS versions now in use.

While EPA considers its next step, states are taking action to tackle PFAS contamination on their own.

'It's a serious problem.'

Horsham, Pennsylvania

In Delaware, National Guard troops handed out water after high levels of PFAS were found in a town's water supply. Michigan last month ordered residents of two towns to stop drinking or cooking with their water, after PFAS was found at 20 times the EPA's 2016 advisory level.

In New Jersey, officials urged fishermen to eat some kinds of fish no more than once a year because of PFAS contamination.

Washington became the first state to ban any firefighting foam with the compound.

Given the findings on the compounds, alarm bells "should be ringing four out of five" at the EPA, Kerrigan Clough, a former deputy regional EPA administrator, said in an interview with the AP as he waited for a test for PFAS in the water at his Michigan lake home, which is near a military base that used firefighting foam.

"If the risk appears to be high, and you've got it every place, then you've got a different level" of danger and urgency, Clough said. "It's a serious problem."

Problems with PFAS surfaced partly as a result of a 1999 lawsuit by a farmer who filmed his cattle staggering, frothing and dying in a field near a DuPont disposal site in Parkersburg, West Virginia, for PFAS then used in Teflon.

In 2005, under President George W. Bush, the EPA and DuPont settled an EPA complaint that the chemical company knew at least by the mid-1980s that the early PFAS compound posed a substantial risk to human health.

The EPA in the past "didn't have much of a hammer to come down on a bad existing chemical," said Lynn Goldman, the agency's assistant administrator over toxic substances in the 1990s, now dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.

But Congress has boosted the agency's authority to regulate problematic chemicals since then. That includes toughening up the federal Toxic Substances Control Act and regulatory mandates for the EPA itself in 2016.

For PFAS, that should include addressing the new versions of the compounds coming into production, not just tackling old forms that companies already agreed to take offline, Goldman said.

"Otherwise it's the game of whack-a-mole," she said. "That's not what you want to do when you're protecting the public health."

SEE ALSO: Why the Thai cave rescue captivated the world

SEE ALSO: Vintage EPA photos reveal what New York City looked like before the US regulated pollution

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I woke up at 4:30 a.m. for a week like a Navy SEAL

Dangerous 'forever chemicals' have been found in US drinking water at alarmingly high rates — here's what to know about PFAS

$
0
0

tap water

  • A class of industrially produced chemicals called PFAS are found in many products, including cosmetics, fire-retardant foams, and food packaging.
  • Almost everyone in the industrialized world has some of these so-called "forever chemicals" in their blood.
  • But scientific evidence suggests they may also be linked with cancer and other serious health issues.
  • More than 30 communities across the US have water sources that are contaminated with dangerously high levels of PFAS chemicals. 

 

In the US, consumers usually assume that the water coming out of our taps has been thoroughly tested and is safe to drink.

But residents in more than 30 communities around the country have found out that’s not the case.

In states including Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and North Carolina, local water systems have been contaminated with toxic chemicals called PFAS, which stands for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

This class of artificial lab-grown chemicals doesn't break down in the environment, and instead remains intact in water, air, and bodies for thousands of years, according to the Associated Press. For that reason, they've become known as "forever chemicals."

PFAS can both be attracted to and repelled by water — two opposite tasks — which makes them a unique class of industrially useful chemicals. The compounds are found in everyday items like cosmetics, non-stick pans, firefighting foams, and products such as Teflon and Scotchgard. PFAS can even turn up in some food packaging, like pizza boxes and microwave-popcorn bags.

But PFAS concentrations can build up quickly in the environment, and people or animals who consume too much of these chemicals can suffer potentially life-threatening consequences.

What PFAS chemicals can do to your body

One common way we come into contact with PFAS is when they end up in the water supply. Waste that's dumped from chemical manufacturing plants can contaminate groundwater, or PFAS can enter lakes and other freshwater sources after firefighting foam gets used.

In humans, the buildup of PFAS chemicals has been linked to a host of health conditions, including:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both think PFAS may also be cancer-causing, since [people with higher-than-average exposures to the chemicals have increased rates of testicular and kidney cancers. But that link hasn't been demonstrated for sure.

According to the EPA, people shouldn’t be exposed to a concentration of PFAS higher than 70 parts per trillion (ppt). But a draft report from the US Department of Health and Human Services suggests that threshold may be far too high. Other states put the safe drinking threshold much lower when they test for the five most ubiquitous PFAS chemicals.

"If your water has been tested and the total sum of the five PFAS is more than 20 ppt, we recommend not using your water for drinking, food preparation, cooking, brushing teeth, preparing baby formula, or any other manner of ingestion," Vermont's state health website advises. The contaminated water shouldn’t even be used to quench your garden, it says, because the PFAS could be absorbed into vegetables you eat.

A cross-country water crisis

Eight big companies, including 3M and DuPont, phased out the chemicals from their products and plants in 2015.

But much of the damage has already been done. It can take upwards of two to nine years for concentrations of these chemicals in your body to be cut in half. Some just never go away.

3M, one of the first companies to use PFAS chemicals, settled an eight-year-long lawsuit with the State of Minnesota earlier this year for $850 million. The state alleged the company knew it was dumping toxic chemicals into waters around the Twin Cities for decades, but hid and distorted the scientific evidence from regulators.

pfas epa forever chemical

In July, Michigan declared a state of emergency in Kalamazoo County because PFAS levels in the water supplies in Parchment and Cooper Townships were 20 times higher than what the EPA considers safe. That’s one of 34 spots across that state where PFAS levels were shown to be too high. 

Factory workers and people from the Mid-Ohio Valley have some of the highest PFAS exposure levels in the country.

But everyone has at least some in their system. Researchers from Harvard estimated in 2016 that at least 6 million Americans — nearly 2% of the population — were drinking water with PFAS levels higher than what the EPA recommends.

As one study put it earlier this month in the journal Environmental Research, "although use in the US has been phased out, PFOA persists indefinitely in the environment, and is present in the serum of virtually all people in industrialized countries."

Plus, PFAS chemicals are still in use in other places around the world, and can be imported in many products, including carpets, coatings, rubbers, plastics, and fabrics.

What you can do

People Drinking Water Fountain Tap

To hear directly from people whose drinking waters have been contaminated with PFAS, the EPA embarked on a cross-country listening tour this summer. Agency representatives have stopped in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and North Carolina to learn about how to help local utilities manage and clean up toxic water. 

At one such hearing in Warminster, Pennsylvania in July, water and sewer manager Tim Hagey told the Associated Press that he used to assure people that drinking his town’s water was worry-free. But no more. 

"You all made me out to be a liar," Hagey reportedly told Environmental Protection Agency officials.

The most recent meeting was held Tuesday in Fayetteville, North Carolina. 

pfas epa contaminated drinking water

Scientists who study the concentrations of PFAS in our blood agree that it's almost impossible to avoid exposure to the toxic chemicals.

In the hopes of lowering PFAS concentrations, some cities have started using activated charcoal filtration systems and reverse osmosis. Others may shift where the municipal water is sourced from.

But it's hard to rid water of PFAS, and you can’t boil the chemicals away. Bottled water may not be any better, since it's much less regulated than tap water and isn’t required to be tested for PFAS.

If you're worried about your own drinking water, you can check the EPA's annual drinking-water report online or look at an independent tap-water database from the Environmental Working Group. You can also use an NSF/ANSI-approved filter at home.

SEE ALSO: Bottled water from major brands like Aquafina, Nestle, and Dasani has been found to contain tiny plastic particles that you're drinking

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Shocking footage shows a pipe spewing blood into public waters — and it's totally legal

The EPA wants to weaken radiation regulations, saying a little exposure could be healthy

$
0
0

CT scan x ray machine radiology

  • The Trump administration is proposing to weaken US radiation regulations, backed by scientific outliers who suggest a little radiation is actually good for you, comparing it to exercise or sunlight.
  • This contradicts the government's decades-old stance that any exposure to harmful radiation poses a cancer risk and that no threshold of radiation exposure is risk-free.
  • Toxicologist Edward Calabrese said the new EPA proposal will "have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars."
  • But physicist Jan Beyea, said the EPA proposal represents voices "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists."

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken US radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.

The government's current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.

The Trump administration already has targeted a range of other regulations on toxins and pollutants, including coal power plant emissions and car exhaust, that it sees as costly and burdensome for businesses. Supporters of the EPA's new proposal argue the government's current no-tolerance rule for radiation damage forces unnecessary spending for handling exposure in accidents, at nuclear plants, in medical centers and at other sites.

"This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars," said Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts who is to be the lead witness at a congressional hearing Wednesday on EPA's proposal.

coal power plant sunset

Calabrese, who made those remarks in a 2016 interview with a California nonprofit, was quoted by EPA in its announcement of the proposed rule in April. He declined repeated requests for an interview with The Associated Press. The EPA declined to make an official with its radiation-protection program available.

The regulation change is now out for public comment, with no specific date for adoption.

Radiation is everywhere, from potassium in bananas to the microwaves popping our popcorn. Most of it is benign. But what's of concern is the higher-energy, shorter-wave radiation, like X-rays, that can penetrate and disrupt living cells, sometimes causing cancer.

As recently as this March, the EPA's online guidelines for radiation effects advised: "Current science suggests there is some cancer risk from any exposure to radiation."

"Even exposures below 100 millisieverts"— an amount roughly equivalent to 25 chest X-rays or about 14 CT chest scans — "slightly increase the risk of getting cancer in the future," the agency's guidance said.

But that online guidance — separate from the rule-change proposal — was edited in July to add a section emphasizing the low individual odds of cancer: "According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of ...100 millisieverts usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk," the revised policy says.

Calabrese and his supporters argue that smaller exposures of cell-damaging radiation and other carcinogens can serve as stressors that activate the body's repair mechanisms and can make people healthier. They compare it to physical exercise or sunlight.

Mainstream scientific consensus on radiation is based on deceptive science, says Calabrese, who argued in a 2014 essay for "righting the past deceptions and correcting the ongoing errors in environmental regulation."

EPA spokesman John Konkus said in an email that the proposed rule change is about "increasing transparency on assumptions" about how the body responds to different doses of dangerous substances and that the agency "acknowledges uncertainty regarding health effects at low doses" and supports more research on that.

The radiation regulation is supported by Steven Milloy, a Trump transition team member for the EPA who is known for challenging widely accepted ideas about manmade climate change and the health risks of tobacco. He has been promoting Calabrese's theory of healthy radiation on his blog.

But Jan Beyea, a physicist whose work includes research with the National Academies of Science on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, said the EPA proposal on radiation and other health threats represents voices "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists."

The EPA proposal would lead to "increases in chemical and radiation exposures in the workplace, home, and outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites," Beyea wrote.

At the level the EPA website talks about, any one person's risk of cancer from radiation exposure is perhaps 1%, Beyea said.

"The individual risk will likely be low, but not the cumulative social risk," Beyea said.

x ray dentist aspen dental doctor office

"If they even look at that — no, no, no," said Terrie Barrie, a resident of Craig, Colorado, and an advocate for her husband and other workers at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant, where the US government is compensating certain cancer victims regardless of their history of exposure.

"There's no reason not to protect people as much as possible," said Barrie.

US agencies for decades have followed a policy that there is no threshold of radiation exposure that is risk-free.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reaffirmed that principle this year after a review of 29 public health studies on cancer rates among people exposed to low-dose radiation, via the US atomic bombing of Japan in World War II, leak-prone Soviet nuclear installations, medical treatments and other sources.

Twenty of the 29 studies directly support the principle that even low-dose exposures cause a significant increase in cancer rates, said Roy Shore, chief of research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a joint project of the United States and Japan. Scientists found most of the other studies were inconclusive and decided one was flawed.

None supported the theory there is some safe threshold for radiation, said Shore, who chaired the review.

If there were a threshold that it's safe to go below, "those who profess that would have to come up with some data," Shore said in an interview.

"Certainly the evidence did not point that way," he said.

The US Food and Drug Administration, which regulates electronic devices that emit radiation, advises, broadly, that a single CT scan with a dose of 10 millisieverts may increase risks of a fatal cancer by about 1 chance in 2,000.

The EPA tucked its proposed relaxation of radiation guidelines into its "transparency in science" proposal in April. The proposal would require regulators to consider "various threshold models across the exposure range" when it comes to dangerous substances.

While the EPA rule change doesn't specify that it's addressing radiation and chemicals, the EPA's official press release announcing the change does.

Supporters of the proposal say it's time to rethink radiation regulation.

"Right now we spend an enormous effort trying to minimize low doses" at nuclear power plants, for example, said Brant Ulsh, a physicist with the California-based consulting firm M.H. Chew and Associates. "Instead, let's spend the resources on minimizing the effect of a really big event."

SEE ALSO: San Francisco is so expensive that people are spending $1 million to live next to a former nuclear-testing site — now some residents are freaking out after learning the surrounding area may still be radioactive

Join the conversation about this story »

Environmentalists fear the Trump administration is gearing up to lift a key regulation on the coal industry

$
0
0

coal-burning power plant united states ohio

  • The Trump administration on Friday said limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants were unnecessary as they were too costly.
  • Those remarks have sparked an outcry from environmentalists who feared the next step would be looser rules favoring the coal industry at the expense of public health.
  • Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury.
  • Those emissions can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems.
  • The EPA has been thinking about a rule change since August, but a group of electric utilities said looser rules were not needed since they have already invested billions of dollars in technology to cut emissions of the pollutant and comply.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Friday said limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants were unnecessary as they were too costly, sparking an outcry from environmentalists who feared the next step would be looser rules favoring the coal industry at the expense of public health.

Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury, which can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency left the 2011 emission standards in place but proposed using a different cost analysis to evaluate whether the regulation is needed, a move that paves the way for looser rules going forward. Its statement was issued on Friday during a partial government shutdown.

Since August, the Environmental Protection Agency has been reconsidering the justification for the rule. A coalition of electric utilities had said the looser rules were not needed since they have already invested billions of dollars in technology to cut emissions of the pollutant and comply.

EPA said it was "proposing that it is not 'appropriate and necessary' to regulate HAP (Hazardous Air Pollution) emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants... because the costs of such regulation grossly outweigh the quantified HAP benefits."

It said its reassessment showed the cost of compliance with MATS was between $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually, while the monetized benefits were between $4 million to $6 million.

It also said the identification of unquantified benefits was not enough to support the standards. Among such benefits, environmentalists say are reduced healthcare costs, breathing cleaner air and drinking cleaner water.

"The policy (Acting EPA Administrator) Andrew Wheeler and (President) Donald Trump proposed today means more pregnant women, young children, and the elderly will be exposed to deadly neurotoxins and poisons, just so wealthy coal and oil barons can make a few extra bucks," Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign Director Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement. Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist.

"Virtually every coal plant in the U.S. has already met this lifesaving standard, and now Trump is recklessly trying to roll it back," she said.

A study published this month by Harvard University's School of Public Health said coal-fired power plants are the top source of mercury in the United States, accounting for nearly half of mercury emissions in 2015. It said the standards have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.

coal plant manufacturing factory jobs united states

'Please stop helping'

Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has targeted rolling back Obama-era environmental and climate protections to maximize production of domestic fossil fuels, including crude oil. U.S. oil production is the highest in the world, above Saudi Arabia and Russia, after a boom that was triggered more than a decade ago by improved drilling technology.

The coal industry had challenged a 2016 conclusion by Obama's EPA that the rule was justified because savings to U.S. consumers on healthcare costs would exceed compliance costs. The calculations accounted for how pollution-control equipment would reduce emissions of other harmful substances in addition to mercury.

Trump's industry allies, including Robert Murray, CEO of private coal mining giant Murray Energy Corp, had complained that the MATS rule contributed to the demise of the coal business by triggering hundreds of coal-fired power plant shutdowns and driving coal demand to its lowest in decades.

U.S. coal-fired power generation has fallen more than 40 percent since a peak in 2007, while natural gas-fired generation soared by about the same amount, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Utilities' demand for U.S. coal is projected to fall further this year, by around 2.5 percent to 648.2 million short tons, the lowest in 35 years, according to the EIA.

In July, electric utilities and utility groups favoring the rule asked the administration to keep it in place. They noted that billions of dollars in investments for anti-pollution equipment have already been made, and costs are being recovered from electricity customers through regulated pricing.

"This is like when your four-year-old kid tries to clean up your kitchen – it actually makes things worse. Please stop helping," said a utility industry lobbyist based in Washington, who asked not to be named. "The rule itself forced coal plant shutdowns, but they aren’t coming back."

EPA said it will take comment for the proposal for 60 days and will hold at least one public hearing.

(Additional reporting by Richard Valdmanis; Editing by David Gregorio)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 science-backed ways to a happier and healthier 2019 that you can do the first week of the new year

12 facts that show why bottled water is one of the biggest scams of the century

$
0
0

hiker drinking bottled water in desert

  • Nearly 780 million people worldwide do not have access to a source of clean water (water that flows through a household connection, borehole, well, or protected spring).
  • In the US, 99.2% of the country has access to clean tap water, but many Americans chose to drink bottled water instead due to concerns about poor taste and contamination
  • Bottled water and clean tap water are virtually identical in terms of purity and taste. In a 2011 study, only one-third of blind taste-testers could correctly identify tap versus bottled water.
  • Unlike tap water, however, producing bottled water is an expensive, resource-heavy process that requires crude oil and extra water. 

There's nothing quite like the feeling of a pure, ice-cold drink of water.

While some Americans get water from the tap, the rest pay for the bottled variety — at a cost of $100 billion a year.

The average cost of a gallon’s worth of single-serve bottled water in the US is nearly $9.50, according to FoodandWaterWatch. That's nearly three times more expensive than the average price for a gallon of milk, and almost four times the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline. Bottled water costs nearly 2,000 times more than tap water, which costs less than a cent per gallon.

Many people assume that the higher price tag is justified by the health benefits of bottled water, but in most cases, that's not true.

This year's World Water Day falls on March 22 — the day is meant to draw attention to disparities in clean-water access around the globe. Worldwide; 780 million people don't have access to a source of clean water.

But for the vast majority of Americans, tap water and bottled water are comparable in terms of healthiness and quality. In some cases, publicly sourced tap water may actually be safer, since it is usually tested more frequently, Plus, bottled water is more likely to be contaminated by microplastic particles than tap water.

"It is wrong to assume that bottled water is somehow cleaner, healthier, or safer than tap water in the US," Peter Gleick, an environmental scientist and the co-founder of the Pacific Institute, told Business Insider.

There are exceptions, however: Water that comes from people's private wells do not see the same rigorous testing as those whose water comes from public sources. And, as was the case Flint, Michigan, some public sources are not properly screened.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of reasons for most people to stop shelling out for bottled water. Here's what to know.

SEE ALSO: Bottled water is a scam for most Americans, but a new report reveals some surprising places where it's dangerous to drink the tap

The first documented case of bottled water being sold was in Boston, Massachusetts in the 1760s. A company called Jackson's Spa bottled and sold mineral water for "therapeutic" uses.

Companies in Saratoga Springs and Albany also packaged and sold water.



Americans consume more packaged water overall than people in any other country in the world except China.

Across the globe, people drink roughly 10% more bottled water every year. On a per-capita basis, the US ranks number six in bottled water consumption.



Today, Americans today drink more bottled water than milk or beer. Each person consumes roughly 39 gallons of bottled water annually.

Source: Beverage Marketing Corp.



In 2016, Americans drank more bottled water than soda for the first time ever.

"Bottled water effectively reshaped the beverage marketplace," Michael Bellas, chairman and CEO Beverage Marketing's , said in a statement the following year.



It costs 2,000 times more to drink bottled water than it does to drink from the tap.

But that number could be even higher, some analysts have pointed out, because most sales are for single bottles.



Soda companies are aware of how lucrative bottled water can be — corporations like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have been investing in it.

In 2017, Pepsi bought a 30-second Super Bowl ad to debut its premium bottled water brand LIFEWTR.



"The worst is the false claims made by some 'specialty' bottled waters that claim magical benefits from adding oxygen, or magically rearranging crystals, or various other water voodoo," Gleick said.

He added that "even the mainstream companies have occasionally had ad campaigns that directly or indirectly malign tap water."



Research suggests that for most Americans, water in a bottle is not better than the stuff from your tap. In fact, one report found that almost half of all bottled water is derived from the tap, though it may be further processed or tested.

In 2007, Pepsi (Aquafina) and Nestle (Pure Life) had to change their labels to more accurately reflect this.



"Bottled water is no better regulated, tested, or monitored than tap water, and often less well monitored," Gleick said.

"When there are problems with tap water, the solution is to invest in updating and fixing our water systems, not to turn to bottled water," he added.



In fact, tap water is typically tested for quality and contamination more frequently than bottled water.

 The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for conducting those tests



Still, the quality of your tap water can vary considerably based on where you live. According to EPA law, you should receive an annual drinking-water quality report, or Consumer Confidence Report, that details where your water comes from and what's in it. You can use the link below to find yours.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency



However, if you live in one of the 15 million (mostly rural) US households that get drinking water from a private well, the EPA isn't keeping an eye on your water quality.

"It is the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the safety of their water,"the agency says on its website



The water from some of these wells may not be safe to drink. In a 2011 report, 13% of the private wells that geologists tested contained at least one element (like arsenic or uranium) at a concentration above national guidelines.

Sources: Scientific American, US Geological Survey



Here's what should — and shouldn't — be in your tap water.



Bottled water's recent popularity may be due to rising concerns about the purity of tap water. A 2017 Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans worried a "great deal" about the pollution in drinking water.

That was the highest percentage of concern reported since 2001.



"Trust in our urban water systems is declining because of preventable disasters like Flint, Michigan," Gleick said.



Though some people complain about the taste of tap water, most of us probably can't tell the difference. In a blind taste test done by students at Boston University, only a third of taste-testers identified a tap water sample correctly.

Source: Boston University



Making bottled water is also an expensive, resource-heavy process.

Like other sources of plastic, the material in bottled water is produced from the byproducts of crude oil. A 2009 study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters revealed that the plastic that went into the bottled water Americans consumed in the year 2007 came from the byproducts of between 32 million and 54 million barrels of oil.



Plus, more water goes into making a bottle of water than simply the contents: North American companies companies use 1.39 liters of water to make one liter of the bottled stuff.

Source: International Bottled Water Association



You might be thinking: "Hey, at least the bottles get recycled, right?" Wrong. For every six water bottles Americans use, only one makes it to the recycle bin.

Source: National Geographic



So think of these facts the next time you consider buying bottled water. To double-check that your local tap water is clean, look up your region's report with the link below.

Find out how clean your water is here. If you can't find your home area, contact your local representative.



Viewing all 129 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images