Whistleblower Speaks Out as Pruitt Tries to Destroy EPA

We saw an amazing pair of events happen this week that highlight how industry lobbyists are attempting to eliminate the regulatory oversight that protects human health and the environment. A whistleblower tells of how he was "repurposed" to negate his expertise, and the EPA Administrator effectively admitted he is there to destroy the EPA.

The whistleblower is scientist Joel Clement, who up until recently was Director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the Department of Interior. Writing in the Washington Post he says that he was "one of about 50 senior department employees who received letters informing us of involuntary reassignments." In other words, he was being moved away from his area of expertise. Clement goes on:

"Citing a need to “improve talent development, mission delivery and collaboration,” the letter informed me that I was reassigned to an unrelated job in the accounting office that collects royalty checks from fossil fuel companies."

Clement is not an accountant and was removed from a position in which he was effectively accomplishing the goals mandated by federal law, and now pressed into a position for which there is no need and in which he is not qualified.

The fact that this was done for 50 long-time employees by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke confirms that this was a deliberate attempt to eviscerate the regulatory goals of the department. Similar to tenured professors, civil service employees (i.e., professionals in their fields rather than political appointees) cannot be summarily fired without cause. To get around this inconvenient fact, political appointees like Zinke, on orders from Trump, "reassign" employees under pretense into positions where they are no longer able to do their jobs. The idea is to harass employees into quitting, or barring that, at least keep them from doing the work they are trained - and obligated by law - to do.

Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt admitted he was hired to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency. On a conservative radio program in early July, Pruitt and Trump were being praised by the host, saying she liked what Trump had done by taking "a guy who wanted to get rid of the EPA - dismantle it - and put him in charge of it." Pruitt's response, "Ha. That's right."

For those who have forgotten, Pruitt is the former Oklahoma Attorney General who spent most of his tenure suing the EPA - the Agency he now runs - trying to block regulatory actions. He was caught copying fossil fuel lobbyist talking points verbatim onto Oklahoma AG letterhead and sending them in as official positions. Since taking over EPA he has worked hard to eliminate thousands of professional jobs, chop the EPA budget into ineffectiveness, and block environmental and human health protections.

During the interview, Pruitt claimed having taken "over 22 significant regulatory actions" since taking over the EPA. However, those actions were all to delay and reverse water, air, and climate regulations already in progress. Pruitt argues that he is trying to "right size" the EPA, but what he really means he is trying to eliminate EPA's ability to regulate industry. That means EPA will not be able to carry out its duties as mandated by law. In essence, Pruitt is intentionally trying to make EPA violate those laws.

Even more astounding, Pruitt admitted that his goal is to carry out Trump's political desire to promote "energy dominance," which they have defined as promoting oil and gas and coal (aka, fossil fuels). But that is not EPA's mandate. EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency. It's role is to promote protection of human health and the environment, not promote narrow industry interests.

These two incidents prove that Trump and his appointees are in direct violation of their oaths of office. They have placed industry profits (and their own interests) ahead of their departments' mandates to protect the public good. Both Pruitt and Zinke should be immediately removed from office for these gross dereliction of duty.

You can find contact information for U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate through this page. Both bodies of Congress have oversight committees with responsibility for EPA and the Department of the Interior (and other relevant departments like the Department of Energy). Contact them to express your outrage at the violation of oaths of office by Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke (and others).

Also, directories for the House and Senate.

New EPA Head Scott Pruitt: The Fox Guarding the Hen House

Last week this page looked at how the new administration - both the White House and Congress - was attacking human health and environmental protection. At that writing, Scott Pruitt was the designated nominee to become EPA Administrator. On February 17th Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-46, largely party line, vote.

The old cliche of "the fox guarding the hen house" could not be more applicable. As Attorney General for the fossil fuel-dependent dust bowl state of Oklahoma, Pruitt repeatedly sued the EPA to block the very health and environmental protections he is now charged with implementing. Can we say "conflict of interest?" Of course we can.

The vote, by the way, was accelerated by Republican leadership to ensure it occurred before court-ordered release of thousands of emails documented Scott Pruitt's collusion with fossil fuel lobbyists. And in fact that is what the now-released emails document.

Anyone who knows how lobbyists work will not be surprised that Scott Pruitt routinely copy-and-pasted language written by fossil fuel lobbyists onto his official Oklahoma letterhead. He also used lobbyist-provided text and talking points in public presentations.

These assertions of "working in the public interest," which is the job public officials like Scott Pruitt accept in taking their oath of office (usually with their hand on the Bible and under legal duty not to perjure themselves), are a violation of public trust when you know your intention is to work solely for the corporate interests of those who are contributing millions of dollars to your campaign. This is the case for Scott Pruitt. He lied to the people of Oklahoma, as did Senators James Inhofe and James Lankford, all of whom take oaths to serve their constituents but really serve only the gas and oil industries that own them while further eroding the health and economic futures of Oklahomans.

In Pruitt's initial address to the staff at the EPA he not once mentioned climate change or other critical functions of his Agency. Instead he promised to favor the interests of the corporations. This is in direct violation of the laws under which Congress requires EPA to work.

In that address Pruitt stated that "regulators exist to give certainty to those that they regulate." That is utterly false. Regulators exist to regulate the industries that have proven not to be trustworthy regulating themselves. The EPA exists to protect human health and the environment, not to protect the profit margins of the corporations who pollute. The EPA and all federal agencies must implement the laws that Congress passes. They are obligated by law and compelled by the judiciary to act when they don't act enough.

So what will happen with the fox running the hen house? Quite likely the hens will notice. In the past when Republican presidents tried to endanger public health by putting in charge people whose personal mission was to eliminate the viability of the agency they were given the professional mission of running, the law kept them from doing it. The laws that EPA is required to implement remain, and any attempt to repeal them will be noticed. Do Republicans believe the American people will not notice that Republicans are repealing the Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? The Endangered Species Act? The various human health protection acts?

All Americans must be vigilant to the actions of the current Republican Administration and current Republican Congress (and likewise at the State and Local levels). They have made it clear they care nothing about their own constituents and only about the corporations and lobbyists who finance their campaigns.

There is a reason lobbyists write legislation, write talking points, write text. Because they know politicians like Scott Pruitt are willing to copy-and-paste those talking points onto official government letterhead and lie to their constituents. Politicians like Scott Pruitt are willing to violate the public trust and oath of office solely to line their own pockets. And that should disgust every constituent living in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and every other state in the United States.

It's up to Oklahomans to stand up against the dishonesty of the Pruitt's, Inhofes, Cruzes, and Rubios. It's up to all Americans to stand up against the dishonesty of the newly installed Pruitt at EPA and his corporate compadres being foisted upon all public protection agencies.

EPA Dealing with Censorship, Hostile Takeover by New Administration

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) woke up this week to a barrage of restrictions that a former Administrator under George H.W. Bush called "going down a very dark road." All Agency communications have been shut down and must now go through political review by the new administration. That includes all "public-facing documents" such as "news releases, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content." The administration has also put a freeze on any new work, on contract approvals, on grant awards, and on new hiring. Essentially, the Agency is in lockdown. Similar actions have been taken to restrict all other federal agencies.

The first casualty was the Department of Interior twitter feed, which had retweeted a photo showing the extremely small crowds at Trump's 2016 inauguration versus President Obama's first inauguration in 2008. Many news media reported that Trump was embarrassed by the low turnout and thus closed down the twitter feed, as well as all other twitter feeds from federal facilities. This ban on tweeting did not, of course, extend to his own unsecured twitter account, which he used to fabricate lies about the crowd size that were proven false by actual facts (in contrast to the "alternative facts" [aka, blatant lies] pushed by Trump).

Temporary freezes on agency outreach have happened before, mainly as a way for the new administration to get its team in place and figure out what the EPA is doing. But former EPA administrators confirm that the current censorship and bans far exceed practices under past administrations, either Republican or Democratic.

But the new administration has stated clearly its intent is to restrict agency science and roll back regulations that protect human health and the environment, deal with man-made climate change, and even improve gas mileage standards. The head of the transition team was Myron Ebell, head of the anti-science, anti-regulation libertarian consulting organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Trump's pick to run the EPA is Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney General who has been the fossil fuel industry's ally, issuing multiple lawsuits to block health protections that would require corporate accountability. He also apparently lied to Senators during his confirmation hearings. Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil and a key funder/promoter of climate change denial and a close ally of Russia's Vladimir Putin, is the pick for Secretary of State.

All of these signal a return to the early days of past Republican administrations who used their political power to censor scientific information and destroy the EPA. Ronald Reagan, for example, had hired Anne Gorsuch, another pro-fossil fuel/mining attorney general, as EPA administrator. She was forced out after intentionally trying to subvert science. Likewise, George W. Bush put fossil fuel lobbyist Philip Cooney in charge of his Council on Environmental Quality. Cooney was caught intentionally editing scientific documents to downplay the severity of man-made climate change. He too was forced to leave the administration, immediately taking a position at ExxonMobil.

So Americans have a valid reason for concern. The incoming administration has been vocally hostile to the EPA since the beginning of the campaign. They have nominated people who have histories of being aggressively anti-EPA and anti-science. Their first acts were to restrict public communication and outreach. They have already signaled rollbacks of congressionally-mandated health and safety rules, while promoting the interests of fossil fuel corporations (many of whom are now part of the administration).

Scientists must push back against such politically motivated anti-science. A few agencies who have had their twitter feeds blocked have apparently set up "Alt-feeds" to continue serving the public. Given the huge success of the Women's Marches on the day after the inauguration (that far exceeded inauguration crowds, despite Trump's blatant lies to the contrary), a group of scientists are planning a Scientists March on Washington.

Meanwhile, the EPA and other agencies have internal scientific integrity document:

The EPA's 14-page scientific integrity document, enacted during the Obama administration, describes how scientific studies were to be conducted and reviewed in the agency. It said scientific studies should eventually be communicated to the public, the media and Congress "uncompromised by political or other interference."

All of us, the public and scientists alike, need to be vigilant to make sure the new administration does not try to remove scientific integrity from the science agencies, as, unfortunately, has been the case in prior Republican administrations.  

[Photo source: Union of Concerned Scientists]

Who is Scott Pruitt?

Scott Pruitt is apparently the new administration's choice to become Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. In short, this choice epitomizes the old warning of "the fox guarding the hen house."

Sound a little hyperbolic? In reality, it underestimates the problem.

Pruitt is the Attorney General for the oil and gas dependent state of Oklahoma. He is currently suing the EPA. Yes, the very same EPA he is slated to lead. Pruitt prides himself on suing the EPA "every chance he gets." He has sued EPA to eliminate standards for reducing smog pollution. He has sued EPA to remove protections against mercury pollution. He has sued EPA to remove protections against toxic arsenic pollution. He has sued EPA to block protections against acid gases and other pollutants from power plants. He has sued EPA to block air quality standards in national parks and wilderness areas.

Until he is sworn in, assuming that happens, Pruitt will be continuing his campaign to block EPA from implementing clean air, clean water, and climate change regulations that Congress has authorized it to implement.

Republicans hate mentioning that part. But it is Congress that has passed laws that require EPA to develop regulations to accomplish what Congress told EPA to implement in those laws. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered EPA to follow through on laying out regulations because it was too slow in doing so. Yes, the Congress and Supreme Court ordered EPA to protect human and environmental health, but Republicans blame EPA for doing the job they were required to do.

Pruitt has led the suite of Republican states fighting EPA health and safety regulations, in particular ones that his fossil fuel lobbyists tell him they don't like. If Pruitt is confirmed, he will try to dismantle these health and safety efforts from the inside.

Pruitt has received several hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry. He was caught sending letters to President Obama under his own name that were actually written by gas industry lawyers. He has fought to eliminate EPA oversight completely, arguing that fossil fuel dependent states like his have a right to destroy the environment, human health, and the climate system just because they make money doing so.

Not surprisingly, Pruitt is a climate denier. He routinely repeats the same old non-science lobbyist talking points fed to him by fossil fuel and libertarian lobbying organizations in Washington. He has outright lied about how EPA has attempted to implement the Congressional mandates given it. He has defended the right of corporations and other Republicans to lie about the state of climate science. And now he'll be in charge of the Agency that both he and the incoming administration have promised to dismantle.

This is your health and safety they are putting at risk.

The professed goals of Pruitt and the administration are to eliminate any regulations that require fossil fuel and other companies to limit their pollution. To eliminate all safeguards against massive CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and oceans. To eliminate all innovation and advances in our future energy needs.

This is the person the incoming administration has chosen to lead the EPA, the Agency he has vowed to destroy. Now he'll have a chance to destroy all health and human safety protections for all of us from the inside.

Oh, and it gets worse.

Republicans Behind the Curve on Global Warming - When Will They Stop Denying the Science?

There was a fascinating public hearing in the Senate on Wednesday, June 18th. True, "fascinating" and "Senate hearing" are not commonly paired in sentences, or even paragraphs, but to those interested in man-made global warming it was fascinating indeed. In it, four former EPA Administrators - all of whom served under Republican presidents - called on Republicans to stop denying the reality of the science.

A century of data unequivocally demonstrates that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is causing the climatic system to warm. Unequivocal, as in, duh! Virtually all the world's climate scientists, all the world's National Academies, and all the world's major scientific organizations, not to mention millions of empirical data points and the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, agree that this is the case.

Just as well understood is the political denial of that unequivocal science by the Republican party in the United States and its cohorts in the UK, Canada, Australia, and wherever else there is a strong fossil fuel lobby. This fact isn't some partisan bias talking, it's been shown repeatedly in scientific studies and political polls. The reasons for science denial are alternatively simple and complex, but the fact remains the Republican party in the US has made a conscious decision to deny the science of man-made global warming in order to block policy discussions that could potentially impact their political base, i.e., corporate America.

Which makes the Senate hearing so fascinating. Rather than the "liberal plot" Republicans and today's so-called "conservatives" claim is behind the science, our understanding of that science has been growing over many decades no matter what party was in the congressional majority or in the White House. The four former EPA Administrators testified to this fact. They were William Ruckleshouse (administrator (twice) under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan), Lee M. Thomas (Ronald Reagan), William K. Reilly (George H.W. Bush), and Christine Todd Whitman (George W. Bush).

All of these former EPA administrators told Congress they must act on climate change.

Some members of Congress, of course, have been trying to take action. Democrats in the Senate were the ones who called this hearing. Earlier this year at least two dozen Senate Democrats pulled an all-nighter to bring attention to the need to take action. But Senate Republicans have blocked even discussion of any policy options. Sensing the potential loss of the Senate majority in the fall elections, Democrats are obviously trying to the push the issue, hence the hearing.

The House is another matter. Again, Democrats would like to take action but with the Republican majority in the House repeatedly denying the science and distracted with their efforts to reduce even rational health and safety regulations, positive action on climate is not even on the radar.

So will this week's hearing convince Republicans to stop denying the science and start working on solutions? Doubtful. But it is likely that the Republican denial will continue to be placed into the eyes of the public, most of whom now realize that man-made global warming is real, is already happening, and action is necessary. More and more it will become clear that Republicans are endangering our future with their denial of climate science. Public pressure to act will continue to increase.

Eventually the Republican party will stop the denial. But when?

EPA and Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan is a Good First Step, But Only a First Step

This week the Obama administration, via the US EPA, released its long-awaited climate rules under the name "Clean Power Plan." The rules are mandated by Congress and the authority confirmed by the US Supreme Court. In short, EPA is required to take action by law.

As with all major rules issued by EPA, the Clean Power Plan is a proposed rule and will be open for public comment for some time. All comments received will be assessed and addressed by EPA prior to issuance of a final rule. Given the substantial impacts on our climate system and the already aggressive attacks on the rule by partisans and lobbyists, it will be a long time before this rule is made final.

The EPA has done a rather good job of communicating the science. We know that they spent many years talking with states, community leaders, businesses, and other stakeholders garnering information on needs, options, and concerns. In the weeks prior to the release of the proposed rule, the administration helped get the word out about what the rules were, and were not. That helped the public understand better when the rules, and the inevitable misrepresentations of the rules by lobbyists, were finally released. EPA even put out a short video to put the rules in context:



The overall goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce the amount of carbon pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Carbon pollution is the major cause of global warming, and action to reduce carbon in the oceans and air is absolutely necessary. And it's necessary now. The Clean Power Plan seeks to reduce carbon pollution by 30% by the year 2030, with substantial reductions occurring by 2020.

Rather than simply dictate how this will be done, the Clean Power Plan allows each state to determine how best to achieve the goals, and the specific goals are different depending on the circumstances of each state. The rules will lead to a reduction in reliance on carbon-dirty energy resources like coal, oil and natural gas (especially the former) and an increase in more sustainable renewable energy resources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric.  How this happens is up to each state. They may:

• make improvements in efficiently directly at the power plants
• increase energy from renewable sources
• generate more clean energy
• expand programs promoting energy efficiency and conservation 

None of this will make coal go away, nor will we suddenly clean up the atmosphere and stop global warming. But it's a good start. By 2030 our reliance on fossil fuels will have lessened, though we should still expect about a third of our electric power to still come from coal at that time, with another third from natural gas. Renewable sources of energy should gain market share to reach approximately the same 30+% by 2030. Unless we can do better, which we most likely will do.

As a proposed rule, all of this will no doubt be sharply debated for months to come. It's critical that debate be based in fact, something the lobbyists and partisans have already shown an unwillingness to do. Still, the fact that man's activities are warming our planet, and the resulting impact on the quality of our lives, is absolutely certain, means we have to start taking action now. The EPA and Obama administration, under authority given to them by the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, have taken the first step. It's up to the rest of us to continue taking additional steps forward.

More information on the proposed rule and the Clean Power Plan can be found on the EPA website.

For those interested in the legalese, the full 645-page rule can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Senate Committee Approves Gina McCarthy Nomination for EPA Administrator

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Gina McCarthy's nomination to be the next EPA Administrator. After Republicans boycotted an attempted committee vote last week, eight Republicans showed up today. All eight voted against McCarthy, while all 10 Democrats voted for her. Even Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg left his sick-bed to make the vote.

McCarthy's nomination now moves to the full Senate where she is expected to be confirmed despite Republican gamesmanship. Republican Senator David Vitter has indicated he will vote for her confirmation. The one remaining political game-playing is by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri who says he will maintain a hold on her nomination until EPA sets a schedule for release of an environmental impact statement for a site in Missouri. Of course, EPA can't release the EIS until they have an Administrator to sign it. The Administrator-nominee that Blunt is holding up.

McCarthy is the current EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Under her watch the EPA has issued significant air pollution regulations, which is the main reason why Republicans are holding up her nomination.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments Under Existing Chemicals Work Plan

From the USEPA Press Release:


"EPA today released for public comment draft risk assessments, for particular uses, on five chemicals found in common household products. The draft risk assessments were developed as part of the agency’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan, which identified common chemicals for review over the coming years to assess any impacts on people’s health and the environment. Following public comment, the agency will seek an independent, scientific peer review of the assessments before beginning to finalize them in the fall of 2013." 

The chemicals and specific use for which risk assessments were released are:

• methylene chloride or dichloromethane (DCM) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint stripper products; 
• trichloroethylene (TCE) as a degreaser and a spray-on protective coating; 
• antimony trioxide (ATO) as a synergist in halogenated flame retardants; and 
• 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta-[γ]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) as a fragrance ingredient in commercial and consumer products.

A brief summary of the risk assessments can be downloaded in PDF format.

More information can be read on the EPA website.

Lisa Jackson Resigns as EPA Administrator

As comes as no surprise to anyone, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has announced that she will resign her post. While not giving an exact date, it is widely expected to be shortly after President Obama is sworn in for his second term and as late as his State of the Union address. Jackson did not indicate any particular position she had lined up but likely there are several options both in Washington DC and in her home state of New Jersey.

A successor has not yet been named, though current deputy administrator Robert Perciasepe will serve as acting administrator until a new administrator is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Perciasepe has been with the EPA off-and-on for about 20 years in various capacities. After leaving EPA in 2003 to serve as COO for the National Audubon Society, he returned at the request of Obama and Jackson in 2009.

Jackson's announcement is the most recent in the fire-sale of Cabinet-level resignations that often follows the reelection of a President. Other Cabinet officials who have announced they are leaving, or have at least unofficially signaled they would soon leave, include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and others. Senator John Kerry has already been nominated by President Obama to be head of the State Department. Kerry has indicated, as has Obama, that climate change will be a relevant issue to be pursued in Obama's second term. This may impact the choice of a replacement for Jackson. While attempts to pass climate change legislation early in Obama's first term, including a bill co-authored by Kerry, as well as regulatory action by EPA, were met by Republican obstruction, look for the new EPA Administrator to have significant influence on this topic.

EPA and NSF Offer Grants for Green Chemistry, Life Cycle Research

The USEPA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced on December 20, 2012 that they would offer grants for up to ten different research projects - totaling $32 million. The grants will be divided between two areas of research.

For Networks for Characterizing Chemical Life Cycle research, interested parties can get more information here.

For Networks for Sustainable Molecular Design and Syntheses, interested parties can get more information here.

Requests for applications for the grants are due by March 18, 2013.

EOA Posts List of Safer Chemical Ingredients

From the USEPA:

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today posted a List of Safer Chemical Ingredients that contains chemicals that meet stringent criteria applied by the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program. This program recognizes products that are high-performance and cost-effective while using the safest chemical ingredients. At present, more than 2,800 common household and other products carry the DfE Safer Product Label. This list of safer chemical ingredients will help product manufacturers identify chemicals that the DfE program has evaluated and identified as safer alternatives.  This list only includes chemicals in products that were voluntarily submitted for evaluation through the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program. There may be other chemicals not included in this list that are also safer."

The safer ingredients list can be found here. 

Former EPA Administrator Russell Train Has Died

Former EPA Administrator Russell Train passed away at the age of 92 on September 17, 2012. Train was the second Administrator of the Agency, serving under President's Nixon and Ford from 1973 to 1977. Prior to EPA he had founded several wildlife organizations and served as the first vice-president of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). He was later made Chair Emeritus of the the WWF, returning there after leaving the EPA.

A statement by Carter Roberts at WWF can be read here.

An EPA biographer of Russell Train can be read here.

An article about Train's passing is here.

More information on Russell Train's career here.

EPA Announces Availability of Risk Assessment Plans for 2012 Work Plan Chemicals

This morning the EPA published Peer Review Plans for the risk assessments on the seven chemicals previously identified as 2012 work plan chemicals. According to EPA, "the plans, which form part of the Agency's Peer Review Agenda, describe the focus of the risk assessment being conducted on each chemical, indicate how peer reviewers will be selected and how the peer review will be conducted, and provide the time line for the reviews."

The External Review Drafts of the plans still need to be published in the Federal Register, and when that happens and the risk assessments become officially available there will be a 60-day public comment period. There will also be conference calls of the peer review panel in which the public can provide additional comments. 

EPA notes that the public can access and submit comments on the individual peer review plans for each chemical by using the following links:

• Antimony and Antimony Compounds
• HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran)
• Long-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
• Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
• Methylene Chloride
• N-Methylpyrrolidone
• Trichloroethylene

EPA Issues Analysis of Alternatives for Bisphenol A (BPA) Uses

The USEPA has issued a draft analysis of alternative chemicals that can be used instead of Bisphenol A (BPA) in thermal paper. According to EPA's Design for the Environmenet (DfE) program:

This draft report is an assessment of 19 chemical alternatives that may substitute for BPA, which is used as a developer in thermal paper. In addition, this report provides background information about how thermal paper is made, and considerations for choosing an alternative. A chemical's inclusion in the report does not constitute EPA endorsement. This draft report does not identify functional chemicals with low concern for all human health and environmental hazard endpoints; all of the alternatives are associated with some trade-offs.

The focus on thermal paper is because it "is widely used for cash register receipts, airline tickets, event and cinema tickets, and grocery store adhesive labels" and because this narrow focus was one area where alternatives exist. In addition, "workers in certain occupations, such as cashiers and restaurant servers who handle thermal paper often, may be at greater risk of exposure." Young children and teenagers entering the workforce may have especially high exposures. Concerns for BPA exposure include endocrine disruption and neurological changes.

The full 492-page PDF can be viewed or downloaded here.

The draft analysis can also be read online as smaller files here.

EPA Posts Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Management Plan

According to the USEPA:

EPA has posted the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Comprehensive Management Plan on its website. The purpose of the EPA's EDSP is to protect people, wildlife and our environment from chemicals that may affect endocrine systems by screening pesticides, chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential effects on estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems.  EPA's EDSP Comprehensive Management Plan provides strategic guidance for agency personnel and outlines the critical activities that are planned for this program over the next five years. The plan is intended as an internal planning document, but is being made available to the public in order to be as transparent as possible.

For more information, the plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/endo

House Republicans Disagree with Endocrine Society on Need for EDSP

This week the Endocrine Society issued a series of recommendations "that will strengthen the ability of the current screening programs to identify EDCs." And now comes word that House Republicans are circulating language for the pending fiscal year budget that tries to limit the scope of EPA's endocrine-disruptor screening program (EDSP).

The Republican language is couched as an effort to "avoid unnecessary chemicals testing." It also tries to limit budgetary spending in an effort to restrict EPA's ability to formulate and implement policies on hydraulic fracturing, mountaintop mining, and other environmental issues that EPA is mandated to oversee. 

It's unclear on what basis the House Republicans believe that endocrine testing is "unnecessary" given that the lead scientific organization in that field is recommending greater attention to the issue. Endocrine testing was mandated by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, and EPA is a decade behind development of the testing regime required by that law passed unanimously by Congress.

More information on EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program can be found here.

Is EPA Ready to Use TSCA Section 6 Again?

Bloomberg BNA is reporting that EPA may be on the verge of pulling out the TSCA Section 6 rulemaking book again, something they haven't touched since 1991 with the failed attempt to regulate asbestos.  The article, penned by long-time Chemical Regulation Reporter writer Pat Rizzuto, notes that the suggestion was made by current Acting Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Jim Jones.

According to Rizzuto, Jones said "We will try and exercise some muscle we have not exercised for decades."

His statements were made at a recent Environmental Council for the States (ECOS) forum.

Use of TSCA Section 6 authority has a high hurdle for EPA, who must demonstrate that the chemical in question poses a significant risk.  Since many existing chemicals often have little health and safety data available to review, and the request for such data requires demonstrating risk (something hard to do without data), the onus of Section 6 has been one of the major driving points for the recent attempts to reform TSCA. 

As has been noted many times here, it seems highly unlikely that Congress will make a serious attempt to pass TSCA reform legislation before the election...despite claims by all stakeholders that they are in favor of modernizing the 36 year old law.  It is perhaps that reality in mind that led to Jim Jones' suggestion - what better way to emphasize the need for TSCA reform than to fail again in using one of its primary authorities?  Perhaps this will give some impetus to Congress to change the law.

And even without Congressional action, maybe, just maybe the EPA can actually address the risks of some chemicals of concern.  As the article notes Jim Jones as saying: "If the chemical is safe, our work will be done."

If it isn't, EPA's work will have just begun.

The Bloomberg BNA article can be read in full here.

EPA Extends Reporting Deadline for Chemical Data Rule

News Flash - The USEPA has announced an extension of the reporting deadline for the CDR (formerly the IUR):

Jim Jones, EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, has today signed a Federal Register Notice under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to extend the Chemical Data Rule (CDR) reporting period by six weeks to August 13, 2012, from the original due date of June 30, 2012.

More details are available in the prepublication version of the Federal Register notice.

More on EPA's Work Plan Chemicals for 2013 and 2014

As noted previously, EPA has 18 additional chemicals that it will review and assess in 2013 and 2014. The list builds on the March 2012 release of the Agency’s work plan of 83 chemicals.  All are being assessed under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Each of the chemicals met a combination of various selection criteria as defined by EPA, including "specific hazards such as potential carcinogenicity or reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals presenting persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic potential; and chemicals found in biomonitoring or reported in consumer products." Other listed chemicals, "such as the five chlorinated hydrocarbons, the three flame retardants, and the four fragrance chemicals, may present an effective opportunity to assess groups of related chemicals together."

Those 18 chemicals are:

•     1-Bromopropane
•     Five Chlorinated Hydrocarbons:
•         1,1-Dichloroethane
•         1,2-Dichloropropane
•         1,2-Dichloroethane
•         1,2-Dichloropropane
•         trans-1-2-Dichloroethylene
•         1,1,2-Trichloroethane
•     4-tert-Octylphenol
•     Three Flame Retardants:
•         Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH)
•         2-Ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB)
•         Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP)
•     Four Fragrance Chemicals:
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert-butylphenol
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-
•     4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert-butylphenol
•     2,4,6-Tri-tert-butylphenol
•     P,p'-Oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide)
•     Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)

While EPA will compile data based on the sources listed in their Work Plan methodology, they would also "welcome the submission of additional relevant information on these chemicals, such as unpublished studies not already available through the existing literature, or information on uses and potential exposures."

Companies are asked to submit any relevant information to the Agency on or before August 31, 2012.

More information can be found on EPA's web site.

EPA Identifies Work Plan Chemicals for 2013 and 2014

From the USEPA:

As part of EPA’s comprehensive approach to enhance the Agency’s chemicals management program, EPA has identified 18 chemicals for review and assessment in 2013 and 2014.  This follows the March release of the Agency’s work plan of 83 chemicals for review and assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act.  The work plan identified seven chemicals on which the Agency will conduct risk assessments in 2012 and indicated that EPA would identify the 2013 and 2014 chemicals this spring. These draft risk assessments will be posted for public review and comment as they are completed.  

I'll have more analysis on this shortly.

Additional information on this effort, including a list of the 18 chemicals, can be found at on EPA's web site.