Update #1 on EPA CO Rulemaking

[Guest guest]

Contents of Update #1on EPA CO Rulemaking===================New InformationPublic HearingStatus of CommentsStatus of PetitionPlease forward this update to others who may be interested, and please let me know if you or organization decide to testify or submit comments (deadline is April 12).

Thanks, Albert Donnay MHSConsulting Toxicologist, CO Analyst and Environmental Health Engineeradonnay@...

Critique of EPA CO Rule  CO Levels of Concern 

NEW INFORMATION ================= Since issuing my Call for Comments on 2/11/11, I have learned that EPA's rulemaking process did not follow the same steps involved in other NAAQS reviews. 

1. EPA did not issue a Regulatory Impact Analysis as required by Exec Order 18266 for all rulemakings that involve a total of more than $100 million in costs and benefits.  

EPA and OMB claim this Exec Order does not apply because the agency is not proposing any change in the current standards, but the order quite explicitly requires the costs and benefits of all proposed regulatory alternatives to be considered, including the cost of NOT regulating.     And EPA did issue a Regulatory Impact Assessment as part of its CO NAAQS review in 1985, even though it then also was not proposing any changes in the primary exposure limits.  

2. EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) did not inform its federally chartered Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) of the CO NAAQS review or the opportunity to comment.  

This even though OCHP has notified the CHPAC of other NAAQS reviews (resulting in the CHPAC submitting comments on ozone, PM and lead rules); even though OCHP had designated a staff person to track the CO rulemaking; and even though the OCHP published a fact sheet in January 2010 on " Air Pollution and Pregnancy--Information for Health Professionals " that referenced the EPA's draft Integrated Science Assessment on CO as the basis for warning health professionals about the risks of low birth weight and birth defects associated with exposure to low levels of CO during pregnancy.

3.  Aside from publishing public notices in the Federal Register, EPA did not specifically request comments from any other federal agency at any point in the CO rulemaking process.  Only EPA staff and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee were directly asked to comment on drafts of EPA's CO Integrated Science Assessment, Risk and Exposure Assessment, and Policy Assessment.   But even within EPA, no one in the Asthma Program or any of the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units was informed or asked to comment.    

Interagency comment was only solicited by OMB at the end of the process, when it distributed EPA's " proposed rulemaking package " to an (undisclosed) list of other agencies.  This may explain why the EPA docket on this rulemaking contains only one comment from any federal agency, and this--from the National Park Service--is only a " No Comment " !

PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY 2/28===========================EPA issued a press release today announcing that a public hearing on will be held this coming Monday, 2/28,  on the agency’s proposal to maintain the nation’s air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO).  As of yesterday, there were only 4 people had signed up to testify.  Please  attend if you can.  It begins at 10 a.m at EPA’s Potomac Yard Conference Center, First Floor Conference Center South (S-1204-06), 2777 Crystal Dr. in                 Arlington, Va.

 EPA's press release claims " The science shows that the current standards will protect people, especially those susceptible to health problems associated with breathing CO from the outdoor air, " but the science shows this is NOT true for ANY risk group.   

EPA also claims (correctly) that " CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the body’s organs (such as the heart and brain) and tissues. "   Its conclusion, however, is only half true:   " At extremely high levels, CO can cause death " --  epidemiological studies show that neonates, children and adults are all at greater risk of dying of various causes from increases in average outdoor CO of just 1 to 2 ppm within current ranges of 0-4ppm. 

  

STATUS OF COMMENTS ====================Since EPA issued its proposed rule on the CO NAAQS  two weeks ago, I have asked over 200 environmental, medical and public health organizations 

to submit comments to EPA.  As of 2/24, only two comments (both from law students) had been added directly to the EPA docket, but the following organizations have expressed interest in commenting:

American College of Chest Physicians

American Lung

Association

American

Thoracic Society

Chemical

Sensitivities Disorders Association

Childrens' Environmental

Protection Alliance 

Clean Air Watch

National

Association of Clean Air Agencies

Physicians for

Social Responsibility

Southern

California

Environmental Health Sciences Center

PETITION

========An online petition to EPA for individuals to sign is available at http://www.care2.com/news/member/100041282/2722616

So far, it's been signed by more people from outside USA than within!

Please add your name--or even sign anonymously if you prefer.