Complete list of press releases

(Washington, D.C. – June 28, 2017) The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) today released a policy resolution for improving the efficacy of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

“Wyoming Governor Matt Mead has shown great leadership along with other western governors in bringing together multiple and diverse stakeholders to the table over the last two years to discuss ways to improve conservation efforts through the Endangered Species Act. 

“The bipartisan commitment of the western governors’ ESA Initiative honors the bipartisan history of the Endangered Species Act – a bedrock American law signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973 after receiving the unanimous support of the Senate and a near-unanimous vote in the House.  

“However, the divisive climate in Washington makes it risky for bipartisan action aimed at improving the law, and it’s critically important that Congress do nothing to undermine the integrity of the act or compromise its intentions.

“That said, certain recommendations of the WGA resolution are no-regret solutions that may be pursued through the act’s existing structure. However, other recommendations give us great concern. In either case, details will matter.”

“Notably, the policy resolution acknowledges that ‘much can be accomplished by working with DOI and the Services,’ and the western governors ‘believe that the ESA can only be reauthorized through legislation developed in a fashion that results in broad bipartisan support and maintains the intent of the ESA to protect and recover imperiled species.’ I wholly agree with this notion and hope to see the bipartisan, cooperative process continue.

“There is certainly opportunity for more innovation and collaboration with regards to the way that we manage wildlife in America. We just have to ensure that the core of the Endangered Species Act is not only maintained but strengthened so that future generations can enjoy our nation’s treasured wildlife and wild places for many years to come.”

 -          Eric Holst, Associate Vice President of Working Lands, Environmental Defense Fund 

(COLUMBUS - June 28, 2017) Ohio lawmakers yesterday removed from the state budget bill a provision that would have authorized increased electricity rates to support utilities’ credit ratings. The provision would have unfairly shifted the responsibility of the utilities’ financial health from the utilities to customers.

“Ohio utilities are determined to bail out their uneconomic, dirty power plants, and this budget provision was yet another backdoor attempt to get more money. Thankfully state lawmakers saw through the gimmick, and will not force Ohioans to shoulder the burden of the utilities’ bad business decisions. We hope state leaders will continue to stand up for customers when the subsidy-seeking utilities inevitably come back for more.”

• Dick Munson, Director, Midwest Clean Energy

(June 28, 2017) In a victory for clean, low-cost, and reliable energy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided in favor of Connecticut’s renewable energy policy today.

A three-judge panel upheld a lower court decision in the state of Connecticut’s favor in Allco Finance Ltd. V. Klee.

“The Second Circuit Court’s decision today supports states’ efforts to reduce climate pollution and transition to cleaner energy resources,” said Environmental Defense Fund Senior Attorney Michael Panfil. “This decision will have profound benefits for the health of Connecticut families, and for the state’s economy and environment.”

Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental organizations filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in support of Connecticut and its clean energy policy.

Today’s decision upholds Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the state to jointly obtain 27 percent of its electricity from renewable sources in the New England region by the year 2020. By affirming that Connecticut is within its legal right to implement this climate pollution-reducing goal, the court makes clear that states have the power to protect the health and well-being of their citizens – who are afflicted by climate pollution and protected by clean energy.

In deciding in favor of Connecticut, the court held that the Connecticut program’s “means and ends are well within the scope of what Congress and FERC have traditionally allowed the States to do in the realm of energy regulation.” (Brief, page 51)

Opponents of Connecticut’s RPS had argued that federal law should be applied in an unprecedented and unwieldy way that would have inhibited the state’s clean energy goals. Given Connecticut’s RPS requirement to obtain renewables from either within the state or from the neighboring region, a decision against Connecticut would have ignored the interconnected nature of our electric grid.

(Washington, D.C. – June 22, 2017) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued the final “framework” rules for implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as the “scopes” for the first 10 risk evaluations to be conducted, and guidance for third parties who wish to submit their own draft risk evaluations.

“EDF’s initial assessment is that changes have been made that significantly weaken the proposed rules, in some cases in ways that are contrary to the new law. Given that this is taking place in the most anti-environmental Administration we’ve faced in decades, the changes heighten our concern that the law will not be implemented in the coming years in a way that protects the public’s health,” said Dr. Richard Denison, EDF’s lead senior scientist. 

Background on EDF’s initial concerns on the final Risk Evaluation, Prioritization, and Inventory Notification Rules:

Risk Evaluation Rule 

EPA’s final risk evaluation rule raises concerns as to whether human health will be protected. In some instances, provisions appear to be contrary to the law.

• Narrowing of conditions of use – Unlike the proposed rule, EPA is now indicating that it may not and does not need to include all conditions of use in the scope of a chemical risk evaluation, and provides no explanation as to how these use exclusions will be determined. EPA indicates, for example, that it intends generally to exclude legacy uses and associated exposures. Further, the rule indicates that the agency can make risk determinations for individual conditions of use, and that these determinations can be staggered. The statute does not permit such separations — a determination that a chemical does not present unreasonable risk is to be made on the chemical as a whole, not individual uses. EPA’s approach complicates and undermines the clear intent of Congress that EPA examine the full range of exposures to a chemical.

• Allowance for narrow manufacturer-requested risk evaluations – In contrast to the proposed rule, manufacturers may limit their requests for EPA to conduct risk evaluations to specific conditions of use instead of all conditions of use. Manufacturers only need to provide information to the agency on the specified uses, and not on the other conditions of use that the agency will need to evaluate. This shifts a large burden to the agency whenever it grants such a request (a minimum number of which it must do under the law).

Prioritization Rule

EPA’s final prioritization rule omits important elements that had been included in the proposed rule, hampering EPA’s ability to make sound decisions about chemicals. Among these omissions:

• Elimination of pre-prioritization – Pre-prioritization is no longer included in the rule as it was in the proposed rule. Instead, the agency intends to rely on a future process (potentially a rulemaking) to develop what is likely to be an unnecessarily prescriptive pre-prioritization process that may limit EPA’s ability to use its information-gathering authorities and be burdensome to the agency.

• Information-gathering constraints – In addition to the removal of the pre-prioritization process, the preamble to the rule describes an information-gathering process that seeks to minimize and undermine EPA’s use of the new testing authorities available to the agency under section 4. 

• Elimination of default to high priority where information is insufficient – Given the constraints noted above on information gathering, it seems implausible that EPA will always have sufficient information before or during the prioritization stage to determine whether a chemical meets the statutory definition of high or low priority.  Yet the final rule no longer explicitly indicates that insufficient information (after efforts to obtain it have been followed) results in a high-priority designation, as required under the law. 

Inventory Notification Rule

The rule creates loopholes for companies that will limit the public’s ability to know what chemicals are on the market.

• Questionable activation of inactive chemicals – A company can notify EPA it is “activating” an inactive chemical and then never do it, yet the chemical still is designated as active, which means other companies can manufacture or process it without having to first notify EPA.

• “Transferable” CBI claims for chemical identity – One company can rely on another company’s prior confidential business information (CBI) claim for the identity of the chemical, despite the fact that the justification for such a claim is company-specific.  This effectively allows companies to assert new CBI claims for a chemical identity using a process designed to ensure the validity of claims asserted previously. 

(Washington, D.C. – June 20, 2017) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today called on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to follow long-standing EPA practice and make his calendar public, as well as the calendars of his senior officials.

EDF submitted a letter detailing the long history of EPA leadership making their schedules public and calling on Administrator Pruitt to continue this practice. EDF also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the public records of Administrator Pruitt’s calendar. 

“Scott Pruitt has departed from a long-standing, bipartisan practice that is vital for bedrock transparency. He has instead chosen to keep Americans in the dark about his activities,” said EDF Senior Attorney Martha Roberts. “EPA has an important job to do on behalf of the American public — protecting our communities from dangerous pollution in our air, water, and land. Without information on the activities of Pruitt and his senior staff, the public cannot have full confidence that EPA’s leadership is working on their behalf.” 

Last week a copy of the first five weeks of Administrator Pruitt’s calendar was made public as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the media. Those calendar entries show a steady stream of meetings with industry representatives. Administrator Pruitt gathered with the American Petroleum Institute board of directors at the Trump Hotel, traveled to numerous industry events, and frequently hosted executives at EPA. 

This development follows reports that have emerged over the course of Administrator Pruitt’s tenure that underscore the need for transparency and raise serious questions about potential abuse of EPA’s limited resources for activity that contravenes important ethical or legal restrictions. For example, Administrator Pruitt was on the verge of attending a partisan fundraiser in his official capacity — in violation of Hatch Act requirements — until his participation emerged in the press and he withdrew.

EDF’s requests aim to rectify the limited and out-of-date information available to the public on Administrator Pruitt’s activities by obtaining records of his calendar through the present day, and by assuring the on-going public availability of his calendar in the future. 

Previous EPA Administrators of both parties have made their schedules public. The practice began with President Ronald Reagan’s EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus who, in his 1983 “Fishbowl Memo,” laid out crucial EPA transparency measures.

Administrator Pruitt was specifically asked during his Senate confirmation hearings to commit to maintaining a public schedule. He did not indicate that he would break with the long-standing bipartisan tradition to share senior managers’ calendars.  

However, Administrator Pruitt has discontinued the important EPA transparency practice of making his and senior managers’ calendars available to the public. The policy change is illustrated by these two snapshots of EPA’s website from six months apart.

EPA’s website on January 19, 2017:

And the same page today:

(Washington, D.C. – June 20, 2017) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and its allies today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to protect Americans’ health and safety by blocking EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s dangerous attempt to delay vital safeguards against air pollution from the oil and gas sector. AdministratorPruitt suspended these bedrock pollution limits for thousands of oil and gas wells without public input, and did so following a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. that was disclosed only as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.

The groups filed a lawsuit asking for an emergency stay to stop Administrator Pruitt from stalling the safeguards, which would reduce air pollution from thousands of industrial sources in the oil and gas sector. 

Today, EDF filed a reply to EPA’s arguments in favor of delay, and pointed out that a stay would create an immediate and irreversible public health and environmental threat for communities and families across our nation:

“Administrator Pruitt issued the stay without even bothering to consider the serious and irreversible harms that befall Petitioners’ members and the broader public every day that the stay continues. This lapse is especially egregious because of his subsequent acknowledgement, in a proposal to extend the stay for two more years, that delaying compliance could ‘have a disproportionate effect on children’ … This Court should vacate the unlawful initial stay at issue here.” (Brief, pages 1 and 2) 

The Clean Air Council, Earthworks, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club joined EDF on the brief.

The protections at issue are EPA’s common sense leak detection and repair standards – the cornerstone of 2016 clean air standards designed to reduce methane and smog-forming pollution from the oil and gas industry. These measures require oil and gas companies to monitor their well sites and compressor stations at regular intervals to detect leaks of air pollutants, and to repair those leaks promptly. EPA’s standards are based on proven state clean air programs. 

EPA’s suspension of these clean air protections affected more than 18,000 wells and compressor stations in 22 states. (EDF has published a searchable, interactive database identifying the locations of the affected wells.)

Administrator Pruitt suspended these protections for 90 days, just one day before they were set to begin delivering critical pollution reductions to communities across the country. His actions would allow smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOC), cancer-causing benzene and dangerous methane pollution to be emitted in enormous quantities. The leak detection and repair standards will provide well over 50 percent of the methane reductions and almost fifty percent of the VOC reductions from EPA’s 2016 standard. 

Administrator Pruitt then proposed an additional two-year delay for the same standards – while acknowledging that the environmental health and safety risks of EPA’s action may disproportionately affect children.

“Delaying these vital standards would put more dangerous methane, cancer-causing benzene, and smog-forming pollution into the air that we breathe – and would put the health of our children and families at risk,” said EDF Lead Attorney Peter Zalzal. “It also flouts the clear limits on EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act – which is precautionary in protecting human health and only allows EPA to suspend pollution limits under carefully delineated circumstances. Our nation’s bedrock clean air laws must be carried out to protect America’s children and all Americans from this dangerous pollution.” 

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

You can find more information about the issue– and all legal documents in the case – on EDF’s website.

(Washington, D.C. – June 14, 2017) Foreign Affairs magazine has just published EDF president Fred Krupp’s new analysis of the Trump Administration’s environmental agenda – just as the fight over the 2018 federal budget heats up in Congress.

The essay, in the July-August issue of Foreign Affairs, observes that “Trump’s position on environmental protection has been consistent: he wants far less of it.”

Krupp, drawing on more than thirty years’ experience as an environmental leader who has worked with both Republican and Democratic administrations, takes a close look at actions by the President that are undermining the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to carry out its historic mission:

“The president’s choice to lead the EPA, the Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, rose to prominence by teaming up with fossil fuel producers to sue the agency 14 times. As attorney general, he allowed industry lobbyists to draft some of his letters to the EPA; now he runs the organization. It is the governmental equivalent of a hostile takeover.”

Krupp focuses on the potential public health impacts of the Administration’s proposed deep reduction in the EPA budget, as well as its attempt to roll back a long list of key environmental standards. 

​“Rolling back regulations will take its toll on public health. For example, revoking the Clean Power Plan and thus allowing companies to emit more dangerous air pollutants would cause up to 3,600 more premature deaths, 1,700 more heart attacks, 90,000 more asthma attacks, and 300,000 more missed work and school days each year, according to the EPA’s own analysis.​”​ 

The piece also presents strong grounds for optimism – from state and local governments and leading corporations that are not waiting for Washington to lead on clean energy, to hundreds of thousands of Americans who are calling for environmental protections:

“In April, hundreds of thousands of Americans protested in marches held around the country in support of action on climate change and serious, unbiased science. By rejecting the administration’s assumption that it can eliminate hard-won environmental safeguards without consequence, they can help turn back the worst of the administration’s environmental agenda. Their voices were critical, for example, in persuading the Senate to reject the administration’s attempt to revoke commonsense rules to control methane emissions on federal land.”

Foreign Affairs is a subscribers-only magazine, but you can read the entire piece – “Trump and the Environment: What His Plans Would Do” – via this link.​

(Washington, D.C. – June 15, 2017) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a group of oil and gas trade associations today filed responses in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supporting EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s controversial decision to suspend vital air pollution safeguards for the oil and gas industry with far reaching consequences for pollution from thousands of wells across the country. (EDF has published a searchable, interactive database identifying the locations of the affected wells.)

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and other health and environmental organizations took legal action to block Administrator Pruitt’s suspension immediately after it was formally announced. The suspension puts the health of children and families across America at risk, and was put into effect without getting public input or considering the harmful impacts it would have on communities. 

“EPA’s unprecedented loophole for oil and gas pollution allows more dangerous benzene, methane and smog-forming contaminants in the air that our children and families breathe,” said EDF Lead Attorney Peter Zalzal. “It is an affront to fundamental fairness and to our nation’s clean air laws that EPA would suspend bedrock safeguards limiting oil and gas pollution – that even it admits imperils our children’s health – and do so without public input.”

EPA filed a brief today in response to the challenge by EDF and others. A group of oil and gas trade associations – including the American Petroleum Institute, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Texas Oil and Gas Association, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and GPA Midstream Association – also filed a brief in support of suspending these protections. 

“This action is more evidence that the worst elements of the oil and gas industry are running amok within industry trade associations and now have an administration only too happy to throw common sense out the window in service of the lowest common denominator within the industry,” said Mark Brownstein, Vice President of Climate and Energy at EDF. “This is shilling for the laggards, pure and simple.”

EPA suspended the leak detection and repair standards – the cornerstone of 2016 clean air standards designed to reduce methane and smog-forming pollution from the oil and gas industry. The standards require oil and gas companies to monitor their well sites and compressor stations at regular intervals to detect leaks of air pollutants, and to repair those leaks promptly. The protections apply to more than 18,000 wells in 22 states, and that number will swiftly rise as new wells in communities across the country are excluded from basic clean air measures. 

Delaying the standards will allow smog-forming volatile organic compounds, cancer-causing benzene and dangerous methane pollution to be emitted in extensive quantities with imminent and irreversible harms to public health and the environment.

EPA’s own announcement of the stay recognized that it may make American children sick, but argued that more illness for only two years is acceptable. Compliance with the standards over the next two years would cost less than one percent of what the industry spends every year to develop new oil and gas resources.  

EDF and other health and environmental organizations will file their rebuttal briefs on Tuesday.

You can find more information – including all legal documents – on EDF’s website.

(SACRAMENTO, Calif.  – June 15, 2017) After over two years of development, the California Public Utilities Commission adopted a series of new standards today that require natural gas utilities to implement 26 separate best practices to find, fix and prevent natural gas pipeline leaks and venting. The groundbreaking rule covering gas utilities is the most comprehensive in the nation and a companion to a March 2017 rule adopted by the California Air Resources Board that requires reduction of leaks from oil and gas extraction. 

Natural gas leaks contain primarily methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The rule, which requires utilities to develop plans to reduce methane emissions from the natural gas infrastructure by 40% from present day levels by the year 2030, will save enough natural gas to meet the annual needs of more than 72,000 homes and save nearly $8 million worth of gas from being wasted each year.

Statement from Tim O’Connor, Director of California Oil and Gas, Environmental Defense Fund

“California’s new methane rule is a game changer for the way gas utilities find, fix and prevent leaks from natural gas infrastructure statewide. It is another example of how states are stepping up even as the federal government pulls back on important environmental protections. When combined with action the state took earlier this year to reduce pollution from oil and gas wells, the rule makes it clear California is not going to turn a blind eye to the climate impacts of gas leaks.”

Statement from Tom Dalzell, Business Manager of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1245

“We are pleased that the Commission will now require the utilities to find and fix all gas leaks. Utility employees are proud to do their part to help reduce emission of greenhouse gases.”

BACKGROUND

According to recent data, in 2015 California utilities emitted 6.6 billion cubic feet of methane due to gas leaks – exceeding the amount of gas released during last year’s Aliso Canyon gas leak disaster, and over twice the total loss from all of the state’s oil and gas wells. 

Utilities are required by law to fix gas leaks that posed a threat to public safety, but until now, there were no mandates requiring utilities to address leaks that cause climate pollution.

The first-of-its-kind decision is part of Senate Bill 1371 – a state bill passed in 2014 that directs the commission to implement solutions for managing gas leaks. The decision requires utilities to implement 26 best practices to improve transparency and reduce methane emissions, including:

• Retain all data relevant to gas leaks, and publicly display leak maps by zip code
• Enhance mobile leak detection technologies
• Use stationary methane detectors at compressor stations, terminals, gas storage facilities, city gates and M&R stations
• Conduct system surveys every three years and above ground leak surveys annually
• Repair leaks as soon as reasonably possible (and not allow leaks to persist longer than three years)
• Mitigate emissions from blowdowns

These actions will reduce leaks and also greatly increase transparency of utility leak management – providing California residents with the ability to evaluate leak data through geographic maps and annual leak reports.

These policies comes days after  the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to delay implementation of national policies aimed at reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry  even though such policies have garnered broad, bi-partisan support from communities that extend beyond climate advocates.

California is the nation’s second largest consumer of natural gas and boasts the world’s sixth-largest economy, and yet it continues to implement some of the strongest environmental protections in the nation. These efforts signal that environmental stewardship is essential to responsible energy development and economic prosperity.

(New Orleans, LA – June 15, 2017) Today, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appears before the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. Pruitt will face questions on the proposed EPA budget, which will cut the agency’s spending by roughly 30 percent. National and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Delta restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Ocean Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy – released the following statement about the hearing:

“Cutting EPA programs that are restoring the Gulf environment is a direct threat to the businesses, communities and families who call the region home.

“We call on the Gulf delegation – including leaders who have lived through storms like Katrina, Matthew, Gustav and Ike – to stand up for coastal communities.

“Time and again, Congressional leaders have made promises to the people of the Gulf that restoration is a priority. These budget cuts threaten the progress that is being made. We urge Congress to reject these cuts and to continue their support for Gulf restoration.”

The proposed budget would cut funding to regionally-based programs such as the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, the EPA National Estuary Program and the EPA Lake Pontchartrain Restoration Program.

• The EPA Gulf of Mexico program encompasses nearly 5 million acres, and has helped shape the natural heritage, culture and economy of the five Gulf states by addressing key issues like wildlife habitat, clean air and clean water in the region.

• The National Estuary Program (NEP), created by Congress with bipartisan support in 1987, has a long record of success through collaboration among federal, state and local agencies. There are seven National Estuary Program sites in the Gulf of Mexico, each of which addresses problems at critical locations for the health of the Gulf as a whole. The work of the NEP is consistent with and reinforces the direction for Gulf restoration agreed upon by the five Gulf states and federal natural resource agencies through the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Restoration Council. Loss of the NEP program would be a setback to Gulf of Mexico restoration. Funding for the National Estuary Program should not be cut from the EPA budget.

(Washington, D.C. – June 15, 2017) A new report released today by Environmental Defense Fund showed lead frequently detected in certain types of baby foods. The report examined a decade’s worth of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data and found lead in 20% of baby food samples. No safe level of lead in blood has been identified. In young children, even very low blood lead levels can cause behavioral problems and lower IQ. EDF’s report builds on a prior federal analysis indicating that food is a meaningful source of children’s exposure to lead.

 “Every child’s food should come unleaded,” said Sarah Vogel, Vice President of EDF’s Health Program. “Unfortunately, food is a poorly understood and often overlooked source of lead exposure, a potent neurotoxin. Our report should serve as a call to action for government and business alike to better protect children.”

 EDF’s report evaluated publicly available data collected and analyzed by FDA from 2003 to 2013 as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study (TDS). Since the 1970s, the TDS has tracked metals, pesticides, and other contaminants in samples of 286 types of food, including 57 designated by FDA as baby food. This represents the most recent available data from the TDS. The TDS does not track brands, though EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain brand-level information.

 The EDF analysis found lead in at least one sample of 52 of 57 types of baby food. Notably, regular apple juice, grape juice, and carrots had fewer samples with detectable levels of lead than the baby food versions. Lead was most commonly found in the following baby foods:

• Fruit juices: 89% of grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead, mixed fruit (67%), apple (55%), and pear (45%). Orange juice had much lower rates.
• Root vegetables: Sweet potatoes (86%) and carrots (43%)
• Cookies: Arrowroot cookies (64%) and teething biscuits (47%)

 Last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that, “the key to preventing lead toxicity in children is to reduce or eliminate persistent sources of lead exposure in their environment.” The National Toxicology Program in the National Institutes of Health has determined that, in young children, even very low blood lead levels are associated with lower academic achievement, IQ, and greater incidence of attention-related behaviors and problem behaviors.

 “We found that food is a concerning source of young children’s exposure to lead,” said Tom Neltner, EDF Health’s Chemicals Policy Director. “While paint and drinking water are the greatest sources of lead in most children living in older homes, all children get some lead from their diet. Even low levels in blood can cause harm. FDA and food manufacturers can and must take action to reduce lead levels in food.”

 “We don’t know precisely where the lead in food is coming from,” said Maricel Maffini, a consultant for EDF. “Contaminated soil is one likely option. However, we don’t know why lead was more frequently detected in baby foods than the regular versions. The fact that 55 percent of baby food apple juice samples have detectable levels of lead compared to 25 percent for regular apple juice deserves more examination.”   

 EDF recommends that FDA update its standards, encourage manufacturers to reduce lead levels in food, and take enforcement action when limits are exceeded. The report calls on companies to test products more frequently, set a goal of less than 1 ppb of lead in baby food, ensure that no lead gets into food from processing, and communicate to consumers its standards and the results of testing.

 EDF suggests that parents can take action by asking their favorite brands whether the company regularly tests their products for lead and ensures that levels of lead are less than 1 ppb in the food they sell. All parents should consult their pediatrician to discuss steps they can take to reduce the risks of lead exposure.

 Today, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is introducing legislation to force the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action to strengthen federal lead limits for baby food and fruit juice.

 “Lead is dangerous for anyone, but particularly for children. Kids can suffer a lifetime of health and developmental problems if exposed to lead, which is why we must do everything possible to eliminate this health threat,” Booker said. “It’s unacceptable that lead is so prevalent in the food we give our children, and this bill will force the FDA to act quickly to strengthen lead limits for baby food, fruit juice, and other foods commonly consumed by children.”

 The full report can be found at http://www.edf.org/lead-in-food. 

(Austin, Texas – June 14, 2017) It is clear that recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico need a new system to manage the way they access fishing. Despite recovering red snapper populations and a dramatic increase in the allowable catch for recreational fishing, from 3.19 million pounds in 2007 to 7.19 million pounds in 2016, long state water seasons and a broken angler management system have choked the federal private angler season down to just three days. We know there has to be a better way and anglers deserve a new approach. But that must be founded in sound science and operate within the law.

With serious concerns for the long-term economic and ecological health of the red snapper fishery, the Charter Fisherman’s Association and the Environmental Defense Fund sent a letter to the Department of Commerce in an effort to understand how it intends to prevent overfishing given this extension of the federal season.

“The current system is failing private anglers and they deserve a fix. It has to be done in a way that gives them more flexible access while still adhering to science-based catch limits - like we have done in the charter for-hire component. However, the best information we have on this 39 day reopening shows it could lead to more than 7 million pounds of overfishing, which will almost certainly shut down our fishing businesses next year, lead to less fishing access for our customers and damage the work we have done to rebuild this population of fish.” 

• Mike Jennings, President, Charter Fisherman’s Association

“Our current calculation shows that the proposed 39 day season will lead to overfishing of the red snapper resource which will mean setbacks for rebuilding of the fishery, fewer days of fishing for commercial, for-hire and private anglers next year and a dangerous precedent for the way our nation manages this shared public resource.”

• Robert E. Jones, Gulf of Mexico Director, Environmental Defense Fund Ocean’s Program 

NEWS RELEASE

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)is suspending natural gas standards that would prevent the unchecked waste of our nation’s energy resources by private oil and gas companies operating on millions of acres of federal and tribal lands. This far reaching action was taken without opportunity for public comment.

BLM is publishing the indefinite suspension even though a Wyoming federal district court denied a request for a stay of these very standards, and even though Congress voted against suspending the standards.

“This action is more evidence that the worst elements of the oil and gas industry are running amok, with an administration only too happy to throw common sense out the window in service of their agenda of indifference to the public interest,” said Mark Brownstein, Vice President of Climate and Energy for Environmental Defense Fund. “Disregarding the will of the people, the interests of taxpayers, and legal safeguards, all in the name of doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry is shameful and, in the end, will be politically disastrous for the Administration, and for the industry.”

The standards would limit the amount of valuable natural gas that oil and gas companies can leak, vent, or flare on millions of acres of federal and tribal lands – a problem that results in harmful air pollution and costs taxpayers millions of dollars and results in harmful air pollution. Currently, private oil and gas companies squander nearly 110 billion cubic feet of gas each year through widespread leaks, intentional venting, or simply burning it off (flaring).

More than 70 percent of voters nationwide support BLM’s natural gas waste standards, which were adopted to address the $330 million worth of the public’s natural gas that is wasted each year.

This suspension is industry’s third bite at the apple.

Just last month, opponents in Congress attempted to repeal the standards using the Congressional Review Act, but the vote in the Senate fell short after a diverse group of citizens from across the country voiced their outrage that Congress would side with the oil and gas lobby over the American taxpayer.

Opponents also asked a federal district court in Wyoming for a preliminary injunction, which would have put the standards on hold. In January, the court denied that request. Litigation over a challenge to the standards is proceeding (EDF is a party to the case).

Now, the Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is invoking administrative fiat to do the bidding of the oil and gas industry.

Today’s announcement from BLM comes just hours after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is proposing a massive loophole in its air pollution safeguards for the oil and gas industry – even though it acknowledged that the proposed two-year delay may make American children sick.

You can find more information – including all legal documents – on EDF’s website.

(Washington, D.C. – June 13, 2017) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced tonight that it is proposing a massive loophole in common sense air pollution safeguards for the oil and gas industry – putting the health of children and families across America at risk.

“It is unconscionable that this unprecedented loophole for oil and gas pollution will increase dangerous smog, methane, and cancer-causing benzene when common sense solutions are at hand,” said Peter Zalzal, Lead Attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. “Every day that these clean air safeguards are delayed, thousands of oil and gas wells across the country will emit dangerous pollution in the air, harming the health of our children. We are taking legal action to carry out our nation’s clean air laws and fight for the health of children across America.” 

EPA’s announcement of the stay recognizes that it may make American children sick, but argues that more illness for only two years is acceptable:

“EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35893). However, because this action merely proposes to delay the 2016 Rule, this action will not change any impacts of the 2016 Rule after the stay. Any impacts on children’s health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited.” 

EPA is proposing a two-year suspension of its leak detection and repair standards – the cornerstone of 2016 clean air standards designed to reduce methane and smog-forming pollution from the oil and gas industry. The standards require oil and gas companies to monitor their well sites and compressor stations at regular intervals to detect leaks of air pollutants, and to repair those leaks promptly. The protections apply to more than 18,000 wells in 22 states, and that number will swiftly rise as new wells in communities across the country are excluded from basic clean air measures.

Delaying the standards will allow smog-forming volatile organic compounds, cancer-causing benzene and dangerous methane pollution to be emitted in extensive quantities with imminent and irreversible harms to public health and the environment. 

“The oil and gas industry tell us natural gas is a clean, low carbon fuel, but industry lobbyists and lawyers then argue to remove the protections necessary to deliver on that claim. Sadly, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is only too happy to do their bidding” said Mark Brownstein, Vice President of Climate and Energy at EDF. “Every day these common sense rules are not in effect, the public’s health is at risk, the climate is threatened, and the nation’s valuable energy resources are being wasted.”

Environmental Defense Fund and other health and environmental groups are already suing to block EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s earlier, 90-day stay of the standards. That lawsuit was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week. 

You can find more information – including all legal documents – on EDF’s website.

Today, national and local organizations working on Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Delta restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Ocean Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy – released the following statement in advance of two different budget hearings today, one with Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and another with Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who will be giving testimony before a congressional budget committee on President Trump’s proposed budget:

“It’s easy to miss why these programs matter if your home, family and businesses aren’t on the Gulf Coast, in the regular path of mega storms. Funding for restoration makes the coast and its communities more secure and able to withstand extreme weather.  

“In this proposed budget, the Trump Administration is demonstrating that it does not understand what’s at stake for our region.  

“We call on the Gulf delegation – including leaders who have lived through storms like Katrina, Matthew, Gustav and Ike – to stand up for coastal communities.

“Gulf Coast restoration efforts are designed to bring federal, state and local governments, businesses, and community leaders together to find solutions that work. That kind of collaboration is what makes communities thrive. Cutting funding for regionally-based restoration and research puts all of that good work at risk.

“Congressional leaders – particularly from the Gulf delegation and other coastal areas around the country – must make good on their promises of restoration.”

The proposed budget cuts will:

• Upend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), which is a commitment from Congress to share offshore energy revenues with four of the Gulf states that are impacted by offshore energy production.

• Cut $120 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a program that Congress created 52 years ago, making use of royalties that oil companies pay for offshore drilling leases. By 2015, the fund had spent $17 billion nationwide, including $4.1 billion in matching grants to states and local governments that want to create parks and recreation sites.

• Additionally, it would cut funding to other regionally-based programs including the NOAA National Estuarine Research Reserves, the state Coastal Zone Management Programs, and the state Sea Grant Programs – all of which are crucial to keeping our Gulf Coast healthy and vibrant.