CHEM2
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see ACC and 2x</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6/18 age of trump</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">lerner intercept</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">whistleblowers cannot tell her (or cpngress) what scary chem in question is b/c law protects proprietary knowledge; if have report law says must submit but if do not have do not hand over?!</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">co adds info to Db aftr sci submits report?!</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">sometimes one exposure can cause harms.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">problem now career staff not trump apptees, rev dr 5x?!</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-october-14-2021/">https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-october-14-2021/</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">kid killer:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/formaldehyde-leukemia-epa-trump-suppressed/">https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/formaldehyde-leukemia-epa-trump-suppressed/</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an 721 no lnx</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/biden-science/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/biden-science/</a></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Four scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency are alleging that the "war on science" is continuing under the Biden administration, with managers at the agency altering reports about the risks posed by chemicals and retaliating against employees who report the misconduct.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>The government watchdog Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a formal complaint Friday on behalf of the scientists with the EPA's Office of the Inspector General, calling for an investigation into reports that high-level employees routinely delete crucial information from chemical risk assessments or change the documents' conclusions to give the impression that the chemicals in question are not toxic.</div><div>
</div><div>The group also wrote to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform's Subcommittee on Environment, calling on lawmakers to work with the inspector general to investigate the allegations.</div><div>
</div><div>The report follows outrage about officials in the Trump administration covering up scientific facts by deleting the EPA's climate change website, but PEER emphasized that the problem is persisting at the agency six months into President Joe Biden's term.</div><div>
</div><div>"These alterations of risk assessments are not just artifacts of the Trump administration; they are continuing on a weekly basis," said Kyla Bennett, science policy director at PEER who formerly worked at the EPA.</div><div>
</div><div><b>Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the agency is responsible for evaluating the risks of existing chemicals as well as those slated to be manufactured in or imported to the United States.</b></div><div>
</div><div>The four employees said in the complaint that they've observed "numerous instances" in which significant changes were made to their own assessments, including:</div><div>
</div><div><b>The removal of language identifying possible adverse effects of chemicals, including developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and/or carcinogenicity;</b></div><div><b>Changes to report conclusions to indicate that there are no signs of toxicity "despite significant data to the contrar</b>y"; and</div><div>Risk assessments being reassigned to inexperienced employees "to secure their agreement to remove issues whose inclusion would be protective of human health."</div><div>"The resulting Material Safety Data Sheets lack information vital to prevent harmful exposures, such as proper handling procedures, personal protection needed, accidental release measures, first aid, and firefighting measures," said PEER.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In one case, managers increased the dose considered safe for consumption for a certain chemical by nearly 10,000-fold, according to The Hill.</span></div><div>
</div><div>"All of these altered assessments need to be pulled back and corrected in order to protect both workers handling chemicals and the American public," said Bennett.</div><div>
</div><div>According to PEER, staff scientists at EPA have spent months raising concerns internally and filing a formal complaint on their own—only to face "harassment from managers named in the complaints."</div><div>
</div><div>Hours after PEER filed the complaint on Friday, the organization said, the four whistleblowers' names were released internally at the EPA in "a troubling move" by someone at the agency.</div><div>
</div><div>"Whistleblowers help protect us all—we must protect them," PEER said.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The organization called on the inspector general to "identify all the alterations and restore the correct risk information," and to dismiss the civil service managers found responsible for the misconduct in the investigation.</div><div>
</div><div>"EPA's lack of accountability for scientific misconduct poses a direct danger to public health," said Bennett. "Inside EPA, scientific integrity has become an oxymoron and a cure will require a complete overhaul."</div></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html</font></a></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">toxic 10 epa rollbacks ewg</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body css-listicle-body-2647067465" style="margin-top: -15px; line-height: 1.5;"><div class="body-description" style="clear: both;"><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From the beginning, the Trump administration has aggressively slashed environmental regulations. A New York Times analysis identified <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">100 environmental protections</a> that have been reversed or are in the process of getting rolled back. <b>The administration's record on chemical safety has been especially hazardous for the health of Americans, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/02/report-after-three-years-trump-kids-are-not-alright" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">especially children</a>.</b></font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/trump-s-toxic-wake-8-ways-president-made-chemicals-less-safe-2017" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">One year into President Trump's term,</a> EWG detailed how the Trump administration has stacked the Environmental Protection Agency with industry lawyers and lobbyists, undermined worker safety and cooked the books on chemical safety assessments.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/13-ways-pruitt-s-epa-has-made-your-life-more-toxic" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Midway through his second year,</a> we reported how the EPA reversed a ban on a brain-damaging pesticide, delayed chemical bans and killed a rule to protect kids from toxic PCBs in schools. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/08/10-ways-trump-has-undermined-chemical-safety" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Last year,</a> we reported that the EPA had rescinded safety rules at chemical plants, rubber-stamped untested new chemicals and silenced researchers.</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Trump's first term nears its end, things are even worse. Here are 10 more ways the Trump administration has continued to make life more toxic for Americans.</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;" /><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem1" data-id="1" data-reload-ads="false" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" data-basename="1-failed-to-aggressively-regulate-toxic-forever-chemicals" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. Failed to Aggressively Regulate Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS contaminate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">more than 2,200 sites</a> across the nation. Because they never break down in the environment, PFAS are often called "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-toxic-chemicals-are-everywhere-and-they-wont-ever-go-away/2018/01/02/82e7e48a-e4ee-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">forever chemicals</a>." <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">They build up in our bodies and are <b>linked to cancer</b>, reproductive and developmental harms and reduced effectiveness of vaccines</span>. Even though the EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">since at least 1998</a>, they remain virtually unregulated.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In February 2019, the EPA released a toothless PFAS "action plan" that lacked deadlines for action and failed to address the use of PFAS in everyday products, contamination from PFAS air emissions or disposal of PFAS waste, among other concerns. A year and a half later, key goals from the plan, including regulating PFAS under the Superfund law and setting drinking water standards, remain unfulfilled.</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Congress stepped in and sought to designate PFOA and PFOS – the two most notorious and well-studied PFAS – as "hazardous substances" and to set deadlines for agency action, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">threatened a veto</a>. Trump's EPA also <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/27/2020-13738/long-chain-perfluoroalkyl-carboxylate-and-perfluoroalkyl-sulfonate-chemical-substances-significant" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">weakened a rule</a> designed to regulate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/06/final-decision-epa-fails-protect-public-toxic-forever-chemicals-consumer" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">PFAS in consumer products</a>.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem2" data-id="2" data-reload-ads="false" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" data-basename="2-allowed-a-rocket-fuel-chemical-to-stay-in-drinking-water" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. Allowed a Rocket Fuel Chemical to Stay in Drinking Water</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel that also frequently contaminates drinking water sources. Perchlorate can interfere with thyroid function, which can also harm <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/kids-still-risk-rocket-fuel-chemical-food-and-water" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">childhood brain development</a>.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/html/2011-2603.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Almost a decade ago,</a> the EPA determined that these harms warranted regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency then dragged its feet for years. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160218" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Natural Resources Defense Council sued</a> to force the EPA to finally set a legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water. In a <a href="https://www.freshlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/12/Doc-38-Consent-Decree.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">court-approved consent decree</a>, the EPA agreed to propose a standard by October 2018 and finalize it by 2019. However, the EPA sought extensions and failed to meet these deadlines.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/26/2019-12773/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-perchlorate" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EPA finally proposed a drinking water standard</a> in June 2019 but also suggested that it might not regulate perchlorate after all. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/21/2020-13462/drinking-water-final-action-on-perchlorate" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">A year later, </a>the EPA withdrew its decision to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem3" data-id="3" data-reload-ads="true" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" data-basename="3-allowed-scores-of-new-chemicals-including-new-toxic-pfas-onto-the-market-without-adequate-oversight" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3. Allowed Scores of New Chemicals, Including New Toxic PFAS, Onto the Market Without Adequate Oversight</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2016, Congress substantially changed the way new chemicals are approved under the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/new-tsca-bill-falls-short-protecting-americans-toxic-chemicals#.WwLUddMvwWo" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Toxic Substances Control Act</a>, or TSCA.</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the old law, chemicals were frequently approved by default, often <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/off-the-books-ii-more-secret-chemicals/new-chemicals" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">without any health and safety information</a>. As a result, unsafe chemicals were allowed to be used for years or decades before the health and environmental hazards came to light. Inadequate oversight of new chemicals can also lead to <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/harmful-chemicals-removed-from-products-often-replaced-with-something-as-bad-or-worse/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">regrettable substitution</a> – when chemicals are finally found to be unsafe, they are often replaced by unstudied chemicals that may be just as or even more toxic.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The 2016 update was supposed to fix the new chemicals program by requiring the EPA to make an affirmative safety finding on new chemicals and restrict use if industry failed to provide sufficient safety data.</span> Nonetheless, the Trump EPA has approved scores of new chemicals in a process that <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/12/09/when-will-epa-fully-explain-and-legally-justify-its-reviews-of-new-chemicals-under-tsca/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">lacks transparency</a> and <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">contravenes the 2016 law</a>.<b> The EPA has also <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/09/05/trumps-epa-flouting-law-when-approving-new-chemicals-here-are-3-examples" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">ignored known health concerns</a>, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">limited its consideration of worker risks</a> and <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/the-trump-epa-is-illegally-denying-requests-for-public-files-on-new-chemicals/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">denied requests for public files</a> in the new chemicals program.</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The EPA has also exploited loopholes in the new law to quickly approve new chemicals, including toxic PFAS.</span> <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/07/28/greasing-the-skids-the-trump-epa-is-green-lighting-dozens-of-new-pfas-under-tsca/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">A recent investigation</a> found that the EPA has been quietly approving new PFAS chemicals, through a provision known as the low volume exemption in the new chemicals program. As a result, the EPA is greenlighting new PFAS chemicals on an expedited basis, without public scrutiny. One PFAS, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/01/27/what-connects-cross-country-skiing-and-chemical-safety/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">used in ski wax</a>, was approved despite a finding that the chemical could "waterproof the lungs," resulting in severe health impacts.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since the law was updated in 2016, the EPA has reviewed more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/statistics-new-chemicals-review" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">3,000 new chemicals</a> submissions. More than 1,000 of these chemicals have been approved through the low volume exemption, and since 2016, manufacturers have begun producing at least 900 new chemicals, many without adequate safety data. Environmental groups have <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">sued the EPA</a> over its failures to protect the public and the environment from risks from new chemicals.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem4" data-id="4" data-reload-ads="false" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" data-basename="4-failed-to-protect-workers-from-a-deadly-paint-stripping-chemical" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4. Failed to Protect Workers From a Deadly Paint-Stripping Chemical</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that is responsible for <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/us-deaths-from-methylene-chloride/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">more than 60 deaths</a> since 1980. In the final days of the Obama administration, the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0001" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EPA proposed a ban</a> on "methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal."</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After significant pressure from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-reconsiders-ban-on-potentially-lethal-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">families who lost loved ones</a> due to methylene chloride exposure, the Trump EPA eventually issued a final rule in 2019. However, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-bans-consumer-sales-methylene-chloride-paint-removers-protecting-public" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EPA narrowed the rule</a> so that it would apply only to consumer<em> uses</em> of methylene chloride, not commercial uses. That means workers are not protected, even though a <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/workers-rights/epa-restricts-sales-of-deadly-paint-strippers-after-years-of-delays/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Center for Public Integrity investigation</a> found that most deaths from methylene chloride take place at work.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/final-risk-evaluation-methylene-chloride" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">separate EPA evaluation</a> of methylene chloride found that manufacturing, disposal and several other uses of methylene chloride pose no "unreasonable risk." Environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-sued-for-leaving-workers-exposed-to-deadly-chemical-in-paint-strippers" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">the rule</a> and the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/trumps-epa-sued-over-understating-risks-of-deadly-chemical" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">recent evaluation</a>.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem5" data-id="5" data-reload-ads="true" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=5#rebelltitem5" data-basename="5-cooked-the-books-on-the-civil-action-chemical" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5. Cooked the Books on the “Civil Action” Chemical</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trichloroethylene is a chemical solvent made infamous by the book and movie "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PHjIly2N0" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">A Civil Action</a>." The EPA considers it to be a <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">known carcinogen,</span> and it is one of the primary contaminants that sickened scores of veterans who served at <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Camp Lejeune</a>, in North Carolina.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As with methylene chloride, in the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning three uses of TCE: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0163-0001" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing</a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0001" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">vapor degreasing</a>. In December 2017, the Trump EPA <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-indefinitely-delays-bans-deadly-chemicals" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">shelved these proposed bans</a>, claiming that it would study those uses in a separate ongoing risk evaluation of TCE.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, the EPA dramatically rewrote the accepted science on<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> TCE </span>in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-trichloroethylene" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">draft risk evaluation</a> released in February. As <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/06/industry-s-behest-epa-caves-banning-civil-action-carcinogen-lays-ground" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EWG warned</a> in 2018, the solvents industry aggressively lobbied the EPA to ignore a key <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241384/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">2003 study</a> finding that TCE causes heart deformities in developing fetuses. TCE's connection with fetal heart defects was an important basis for the Obama EPA's decision to ban three uses of TCE. An <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623816303240#bib0190" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">independent review</a> of the EPA's science found that "prenatal exposure to TCE can cause human cardiac defects" and that the study "remains a valid choice" for assessing risk.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lobbyists succeeded. The EPA's draft risk evaluation questioned the study's design and minimized its significance. An <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/epa-scientists-found-a-toxic-chemical-damages-fetal-hearts-the-trump-white-house-rewrote-their-assessment/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">investigation by Reveal News</a> compared the draft risk evaluation with a leaked earlier draft. It found that the earlier draft had relied extensively on the 2003 study and used it as a benchmark for the risk calculations. Reveal also reported that then-EPA chemicals safety chief Nancy Beck – "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/05/scariest-trump-appointee-you-ve-never-heard" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">the scariest Trump appointee you've never heard of</a>" – ordered that the risk evaluation be rewritten to downplay the risks of TCE. With the EPA giving significantly less weight to risks from fetal heart deformities, it's unlikely the agency will finalize the proposed bans.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem6" data-id="6" data-reload-ads="false" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=6#rebelltitem6" data-basename="6-pressured-epa-scientists-to-drop-evaluations-of-toxic-chemicals-including-formaldehyde" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6. Pressured EPA Scientists to Drop Evaluations of Toxic Chemicals – Including <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Formaldehyde</span></font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump EPA is undermining the work of independent scientists within the Integrated Risk Information System program, known as IRIS. The program's work is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Its scientific assessments are intended to support the work of other EPA program offices and regional offices. IRIS is a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/03/epa-iris-toxic-chemicals/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">frequent target of chemical industry attacks</a> because its independent safety assessments often don't align with industry objectives.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In 2018, the Trump EPA tried to <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3534381/Combined.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">defund</a> the IRIS program</span>. EPA leadership also pressured IRIS to drop critical health assessments. In March 2019, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697212.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">a Government Accountability Office report</a> disclosed that EPA leadership directed agency offices to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to review, and cut in half the number of IRIS's ongoing or upcoming assessments.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the halted assessments was IRIS's decades-long review of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical and <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">known human carcinogen</a>. This is surprising because former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2018 that the report was complete and <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruitt%20Letter%20formaldehyde%20assessment.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">ready for release</a>. However, answering <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/01/29/document_pm_02.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">questions for the record</a> following a 2019 Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said formaldehyde was "not a top priority."</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Instead of releasing the IRIS study on formaldehyde to the public, the EPA has instead decided that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – under the leadership of Nancy Beck – should <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-list-next-20-chemicals-undergo-risk-evaluation-under-tsca" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">conduct its own assessment</a> of formaldehyde. As with TCE, this action will give the agency an opportunity to distort the science and minimize risks. Because these reviews take years, it will also significantly delay any EPA regulatory action on formaldehyde.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem7" data-id="7" data-reload-ads="true" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=7#rebelltitem7" data-basename="7-rolled-back-clean-water-protections" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">7. Rolled Back Clean Water Protections</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Industrial chemical pollutants are often discharged into drinking water supplies</b>. But the Trump administration has made it a priority to roll back the<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;"> Clean Water Rule,</a> which more clearly defined which kinds of bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act. EWG's analysis found that the Clean Water Rule, if implemented as proposed by the Obama administration, would have protected drinking water sources for more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">117 million Americans</a>.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">EPA's own science advisors</a> have opposed the rollback of the Clean Water Rule, but the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-completes-repeal-clean-water-rule-imperiling-drinking-water-sources-117m-people" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">repealed</a> it in 2019, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-administration-finalizes-repeal-pollution-rule-threatening-drinking-water-sources-117" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">proposed its own rule</a> in January and <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020-02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">finalized it</a> in April. The new rule covers far fewer bodies of water and would leave 234,000 miles of small streams unprotected<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">. EWG estimates that at least 72 million Americans draw at least half their drinking water from small streams.</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because of the repeal, those bodies of water will no longer be subject to pollution limits. Protection for small and seasonal streams and wetlands is important because they often flow into larger bodies of water, including sources of drinking water.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Polluted drinking water sources <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/17/judge-dismisses-water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/99327928/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">strain municipal water utilities</a> tasked with filtering out contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and risk exposing the public to more <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/state-of-american-drinking-water.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">contaminants that aren't regulated</a> under the act.</span></font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem8" data-id="8" data-reload-ads="false" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=8#rebelltitem8" data-basename="8-cooked-the-books-on-asbestos" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Asbestos is a highly toxic, naturally occurring <b>chemical linked to a particularly deadly form of cancer called <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/symptoms-causes/syc-20375022" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">mesothelioma</a>. </b>An estimated <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Jukka%20Takala&orcid=0000-0001-5722-7052" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">40,000 Americans</a> die every year from asbestos-related diseas</span>es. Although the toxicity of asbestos is well understood, the EPA has never actually banned most uses. The EPA attempted a ban in 1989, but most of the rule was overturned by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6165892895625819539&q=corrosion+proof+fittings+v+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=20006" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.</a></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Congress reformed TSCA in 2016, the EPA announced that asbestos would be one of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/under-new-safety-law-epa-picks-first-10-chemicals-review" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">first 10 chemicals</a> reviewed under the new law. Many hoped that this time, the EPA would finally ban asbestos.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Instead, when the EPA released its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-asbestos" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">draft risk evaluation</a> in May, it found that several uses of asbestos, including import of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and distribution of asbestos-containing products, did not pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA made its risk determinations by ignoring exposure from "legacy" uses of asbestos, such as old insulation and building tiles. Although in November the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/court-trump-epa-acted-unlawfully-refusing-consider-legacy-use-asbestos-lead" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> ordered the EPA to fix this error, it has yet to do so.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Instead of banning asbestos, in April 2019 the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/25/2019-08154/restrictions-on-discontinued-uses-of-asbestos-significant-new-use-rule" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">published a rule</a> requiring notice and approval before manufacturers could resume using it in some applications the agency considered abandoned. However, <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">leaked documents</a> show that more than a dozen EPA staffers urged an outright ban on asbestos instead.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem9" data-id="9" data-reload-ads="true" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=9#rebelltitem9" data-basename="9-proposed-a-loophole-for-toxic-air-pollution" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">9. Proposed a Loophole for Toxic Air Pollution</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In July 2019, the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/26/2019-14252/reclassification-of-major-sources-as-area-sources-under-section-112-of-the-clean-air-act" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Trump EPA proposed to reverse</a> a longstanding policy requiring large power plants, refineries and other industrial polluters to always meet certain strict controls, even after reducing emissions. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The new rule creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act regulations that would allow large industrial facilities to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/reclassification_of_major_sources_as_area_sources_under_section_112_of_the_clean_air_act.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">reclassify themselves</a>, from "major sources" of air pollution to "area sources."</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That change would allow them to opt out of strict pollution control standards, called "maximum achievable control technology," and substantially increase their emissions of dangerous air pollutants. EPA's own data shows that more than <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-26/pdf/2019-14252.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">3,900 large facilities</a> that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">emit pollutants like mercury and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">benzene</span></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> </span>could take advantage of this loophole. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2020/02/19/epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole/?conversion_pg=www.momscleanairforce.org%2Fthe-racism-of-the-epa-agenda%2F" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">The Environmental Defense Fund</a> estimates the loophole could increase toxic air emissions by as much as 480 percent, or almost 50 million pounds per year.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This rollback is especially alarming in the midst of the global coronavirus pandemic. Studies have found that people who live in areas with <a href="https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/07/17/why-air-pollution-is-linked-to-severe-cases-of-covid-19/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">high levels of air pollution</a> are at greater risk for severe cases of COVID-19.</font></p></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" id="rebelltitem10" data-id="10" data-reload-ads="false" data-is-image="False" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-2647067465.html?rebelltitem=10#rebelltitem10" data-basename="10-continuing-its-quest-to-censor-science" data-post-id="2647067465" data-published-at="1598221956" data-use-pagination="False"><h3 data-role="headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10. Continuing Its Quest to Censor Science</font></h3><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2018, the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">proposed a disastrous rule</a> significantly limiting the kinds of science the agency can rely on to justify environmental regulations. The rule would have prohibited the agency from using studies that don't make their underlying data publicly available or whose results can't be replicated. That change would prevent the EPA from including in its future risk assessments most <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/scientific-medical-academic-groups-urge-epa-drop-transparency-rule" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">human health studies</a>, because personal medical data must remain confidential. The rule would undermine studies that are foundational to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">clean air regulations</a>.</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proposal sparked enormous opposition from scientists, academics and environmental health advocates. More than 600,000 public comments were submitted to the agency, the vast majority in opposition. In September 2019, the EPA dropped the proposal from its regulatory agenda.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the Trump EPA is at it again. In March, the agency issued a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">supplemental proposal</a> that is actually <a href="https://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/ewg-comments-epa-strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">worse than</a> the original proposal. The 2018 proposal applied to all "dose response" studies, but the new proposal applies to all studies. The new proposal also applies retroactively, which means the EPA could use it to gut existing regulations.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As these actions – and dozens of others – show, the Trump EPA has aggressively worked to erode and eliminate vital environmental and public health protections. The public needs an EPA that will prioritize people and planet over polluters and profit.</font></p></div></div></div></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p class="print-title" style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></p></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">‘This decision is grave’: Here’s how Trump’s White House gave the green light to a dangerous chemical linked to fetal heart defects</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">President Donald J. Trump listens to a reporter’s question after his announcement of the proposed changes to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Written by Alex Henderson March 2, 2020</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), founded half a century ago in 1970, has existed under nine different presidents including Donald Trump. One of the people who has been encouraging the EPA to weaken its environmental standards is </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">John DeSesso, who has a long history of lobbying on behalf of chemical companies.</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> And science reporter Elizabeth Shogren, in an article for Reveal News, describes DeSesso’s campaign to persuade the EPA that trichloroethylene or TCE — a toxic chemical linked to fetal heart defects — is perfectly safe.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>DeSesso, </b>Shogren reports, met with “a dozen EPA scientists and officials” in the hope of convincing them that TCE is not dangerous. According to Shogren, DeSesso has “primarily earned his living” as a “contract scientist for chemical companies and their trade associations, promoting their positions on toxic chemicals from arsenic to Roundup. As cancer clusters, immune disorders and fetal abnormalities mounted in communities contaminated by TCE, DeSesso was paid to cast doubt on the research establishing TCE’s toxic effects on the human body.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">In making his case for TCE to the EPA, Shogren notes, DeSesso set out to “undercut” a 2003 study that was led by scientist Paula Johnson for the University of Arizona and was “a landmark in establishing that TCE exposure at trace levels was highly toxic to developing embryos.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> John’s study, according to Shogren, “had been pivotal in past EPA evaluations of TCE’s risks.”</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In February, the EPA released an evaluation of the effects of TCE — one that, Shogren warns, “appears to show the influence of DeSesso and his chemical company sponsors.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Dismissing the findings of the Johnson study and decades of scientific research, the published evaluation rejects fetal heart malformations as a benchmark for unsafe exposure levels to TCE,” Shogren observes.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Reveal News, “This decision is grave. It not only underestimates the lifelong risks of the chemical, especially to the developing fetus — it also presents yet another example of this administration bowing to polluters’ interests over public health.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></div></div></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">120 desmog</font></p><div class="views-field views-field-created" style="margin-bottom: 0.75em;"><span class="field-content"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 18, 2020 - 13:20 • <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/user/julie-dermansky" title="View user profile." class="username" style="text-transform: uppercase;">JULIE DERMANSKY</a></font></span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-series"><div class="field-content"><div class="views-field views-field-title-1" style="line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 800; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span class="field-content"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/18/diane-wilson-formosa-point-comfort-texas-plastic-pollution-settlement" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Activists Find Evidence of Formosa Plant in Texas Still Releasing Plastic Pollution Despite $50 Million Settlement</a></font></span></div><div class="views-field views-field-body" style="overflow: inherit;"><div class="field-content"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/18/diane-wilson-formosa-point-comfort-texas-plastic-pollution-settlement#disqus_thread" data-disqus-identifier="node/14156" style="text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: bottom; padding-top: 1px; display: inline !important;">
</a>On the afternoon of January 15, activist Diane Wilson kicked off a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Community/San-Antonio-Bay-Waterkeeper-128611780622397" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">San Antonio Estuary Waterkeeper</a> meeting on the side of the road across from a Formosa plastics manufacturing plant in Point Comfort, Texas. After Wilson and the waterkeeper successfully sued Formosa, the company agreed to no longer release even one of the tiny plastic pellets known as nurdles into the region’s waterways. The group of volunteers had assembled that day to check whether the plant was still discharging these raw materials of plastics manufacturing. </font></p></div></div><div class="views-field views-field-view-node" style="text-align: right; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/18/diane-wilson-formosa-point-comfort-texas-plastic-pollution-settlement" style="outline: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MOR</font></a></span></div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">chem fingerprint acctable</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div class="views-field views-field-body" style="font-size: 14px; overflow: inherit; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif"><div class="field-content"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">technology exists to hold polluters accountable, but can it now be used to help monitor pollution and prevent toxic messes?</p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">In the early 2000s, residents of a small, Rust Belt city called Tonawanda, New York, began noticing something strange: Over the years, it seemed, an increasing number of people were getting sick — primarily with cancer.</p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;">Tonawanda’s a highly industrial city with more than 50 polluting facilities situated within a three-mile radius. It was common for the air to feel dense and to smell like gasoline. Residents wondered what toxic chemicals might be in the air and if they were making them sick.</p></div></div><div class="views-field views-field-disqus-comment-count" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><span class="field-content" /></div><div class="views-field views-field-view-node" style="text-align: right; text-transform: uppercase; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/11/citizen-science-tonawanda-coke-chemical-fingerprinting-public-health" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">READ MORE</a></span></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter</font></h1></div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="js-scroll-trigger" data-target="body" data-triggers="render-rebelbar" data-toggle-class="with-floating-shares" data-loaded="true" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></span></font><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2408760609" data-authors="MintPress News" data-headline="U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Whitney Webb</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Last week, mainstream media outlets <a href="https://apnews.com/ad3921277f4b4f1bb4fc098df3d43748/Navy:-%22Significant-amount%22-of-jet-fuel-leaked-at-base" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">gave minimal attention</a> to the news that the U.S. Naval station in Virginia Beach had <a href="http://wavy.com/2017/05/11/jet-fuel-spill-at-nas-oceana/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">spilled</a> an estimated 94,000 gallons of jet fuel into a nearby waterway, less than a mile from the Atlantic Ocean.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While the incident was by no means as catastrophic as <a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/371086-worst-pipeline-accidents-2016/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">some other pipeline spills</a>, it underscores an important yet little-known fact—that the U.S. Department of Defense is both the nation's and the world's, largest polluter.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined, the U.S. Department of Defense has left its toxic legacy throughout the world in the form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pesticides</a>, defoliants like Agent Orange and lead, among others.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In 2014, the former head of the Pentagon's environmental program <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">told Newsweek</a> that her office has to contend with 39,000 contaminated areas spread across 19 million acres just in the U.S. alone.</b></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">U.S. military bases, both domestic and foreign, consistently rank among some of the most polluted places in the world, as perchlorate and other components of jet and rocket fuel contaminate sources of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" style="text-decoration-line: none;">drinking water</a>, aquifers and soil. Hundreds of military bases can be found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) <a href="http://www.veteransinfo.org/epa.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">list of Superfund sites</a>, which qualify for clean-up grants from the government.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Almost 900</a> of the nearly 1,200 Superfund sites in the U.S. are abandoned military facilities or sites that otherwise support military needs, not counting the military bases themselves.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Almost every military site in this country is seriously contaminated," John D. Dingell, a retired Michigan congressman and war veteran, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">told Newsweek</a> in 2014. Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina is one such base. Lejeune's contamination became widespread and even deadly after its groundwater was polluted with a sizable amount of carcinogens from 1953 to 1987.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, it was <a href="http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/25/va-to-begin-processing-camp-lejeune-toxic-water-claims.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">not until this February</a> that the government allowed those exposed to chemicals at Lejeune to make official compensation claims. Numerous bases abroad have also contaminated local drinking water supplies, most famously <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/10/new-docs-link-polluted-drinking-water-supply-massive-us-military-base" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the Kadena Air Force Base</a> in Okinawa.</font></p></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">poison papers history</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-october-10-2018/">https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-october-10-2018/</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><header style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(230, 230, 230);"><p class="time-published tracking text-primary small text-uppercase " style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 1rem 12.5px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.05em; display: inline;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><time class="updated" datetime="2018-10-10T19:00:00-07:00" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10.10.18 - 12:00PM</font></time></span></p><h2 class="entry-title v-top-0 h4" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12.5px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA and the Chemical Industry: A Cozy Alliance</font></h2><p class="vcard author mono-serif text-uppercase" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 12.5px; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.05em; line-height: 1.2;"><a href="https://kpfa.org/program/against-the-grain/" class="program-title url fn n" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="text-primary" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">AGAINST THE GRAIN</font></span></a></p></header><div class="entry-summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(230, 230, 230);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 12.5px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with safeguarding the public from toxic exposure. But Jonathan Latham, executive director of the Bioscience Research Project, says that The Poison Papers — an enormous trove of documents — indicate that the EPA and the chemical industry often work hand in hand to mislead us into thinking that toxic chemicals …</font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/poison-papers-epa-2466211797.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/poison-papers-epa-2466211797.html</a></font></div><div><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Poison Papers Reveal EPA Collusion With Chemical Industry</font></h1></div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="js-scroll-trigger" data-target="body" data-triggers="render-rebelbar" data-toggle-class="with-floating-shares" data-loaded="true" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></span></font><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2466211797" data-authors="Center for Media and Democracy" data-headline="Poison Papers Reveal EPA Collusion With Chemical Industry" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Rebekah Wilce</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The world of independent chemical testing has a shiny veneer. The public is reassured that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" style="text-decoration-line: none;">chemicals</a> they're exposed to on a daily basis are certified by technicians in spotless white lab coats who carefully conduct scientific studies, including on animals in neat rows of cages.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But a federal grand jury investigation that ended with convictions in the early <b>1980s discovered that Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT), the largest such lab in the U.S., conducted trials with mice that regularly drowned in their feeding troughs</b>. The dead animals would decompose so quickly that "their bodies <a href="http://planetwaves.net/contents/faking_it.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">oozed</a> through wire cage bottoms and lay in purple puddles on the dropping trays." IBT even invented an acronym "TBD/TDA" for its raw safety data, later discovered to mean "<a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">too badly decomposed</a>."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That was just one of a host of problems uncovered at IBT which conducted an estimated 35 to 40 percent of all the toxicology tests performed in the U.S. including for U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated products and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulated <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pesticides</a> and chemicals. Scientists at the FDA were the first to spot the fraud and misconduct and blew the whistle on IBT in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Senate hearings</a> in the late 1970's. Soon after, the EPA was forced to deal with the issue and estimated behind the scenes that some 80 percent of the data provided to them for chemical registration from IBT was nonexistent, fraudulent or invalid.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IBT scandal presented the EPA with a potentially immense crisis. Knowing that almost every IBT test it had looked at was seriously flawed and presumptively fraudulent, it could order retests and withdraw its approval from every IBT-tested chemical. This course of action would have been fully warranted, scientifically. But it would have had drastic effects on the chemical industry, on public confidence and on the newly-formed EPA itself.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What the EPA did instead is revealed in a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3417915-IBT-Howard-Johnson-Transcript.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">transcript</a> of a meeting that took place at the Howard Johnson Inn in Arlington, Virginia on Oct. 3, 1978. This secret meeting was between senior figures at EPA, Canada's Health Protection Branch, and executives of the chemical industry and was intended to solve the IBT "problem."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This transcript is part of more than 20,000 documents, weighing more than three tons, just released by the <a href="https://bioscienceresource.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bioscience Resource Project</a> and the <a href="http://www.exposedbycmd.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Media and Democracy</a>, on the "<a href="https://www.poisonpapers.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Poison Papers</a>" website. Most of the Poison Papers were collected by author and activist <a href="https://www.poisonpapers.org/about-us/carol-van-strum/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Carol Van Strum</a>, who used documents obtained through public interest lawsuits and open records requests to investigate chemical pollution and digitized by journalist <a href="https://www.poisonpapers.org/about-us/peter-von-stackelberg/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Peter von Stackelberg</a>. Van Strum's remarkable story was detailed this week in <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/07/26/chemical-industry-herbicide-poison-papers/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Intercept</a>.</font></p></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...<strong style="">Conversation About Collusion</strong></font></div><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="https://www.poisonpapers.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Poison Papers</a> represent a vast trove of rediscovered chemical industry and regulatory agency documents and correspondence stretching back to the 1920s. Collectively they shed light on what was known about chemical toxicity, when and by whom, in the often-incriminating words of the participants themselves.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Howard Johnson's transcript is a prime example of the materials in the trove. It allows us to "listen in" on a conversation that took place decades ago, but still has implication for us today.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The transcript "exemplifies as well as any other single document among the Papers the history of everyday regulatory failures and agency complicity that is the unknown story of the EPA and its enduring collusion with the chemical industry, and whose result is a systemic failure to protect the American public from chemical hazards," said Dr. Jonathan Latham, director of the <a href="https://bioscienceresource.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bioscience Resource Project.</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Not One" IBT Study Free of Errors</font></strong></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Howard Johnson's meeting was called to discuss the IBT scandal and plan a way forward. No consumer groups, environmental groups or members of the public were present that day in Arlington under HoJo's cheerful orange roof when the topic of how to deal with the dead animals, the fraudulent and the corrupt data was discussed.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Near the outset of the meeting, the EPA's Fred Arnold, acting branch chief of Regulatory Analysis & Lab Audits, assured the chemical company representatives present that no chemicals would be removed from the market, even though the studies supposedly showing their safety had been proven fraudulent:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"We determined that [i]t was neither in EPA's interest or the public interest or the registrants' interest [to replace all IBT data] because a large number of studies, which were performed at IBT, were performed satisfactorily," Arnold said. (p. 6).</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yet Arnold's contention that some of the studies were "satisfactory" was contradicted multiple times in the same meeting. It was later stated, for example, that not one IBT study was free of errors (p. 16). Dr. Arthur Pallotta, consultant to the Special Pesticide Review Division in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, stated that "there were few [IBT] studies that did not have discrepancies, errors and omissions" (p. 27). Elsewhere in the transcript, EPA accepted that more than 80 percent of the test results from IBT were invalid (p. 123).</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Arnold's assertion that it wasn't in anyone's interest to demand new studies had striking ramifications. It was the grounds for not removing any chemicals from the market, for reassuring the public, and for kicking the IBT mess down the road. By 1983, EPA had determined that <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/69H25Lrgw?url=http://planetwaves.net/contents/ibt_guity.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">more than 90 percent</a> of IBT's studies submitted to them had serious, invalidating problems.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A "Salvage Operation": Ignoring Scientific Controls</font></strong></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Early in the meeting, EPA made a list of IBT errors that it planned to ignore to make the task of "validating" IBT's studies manageable.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It planned to ignore whenever animals were missing from (or added to) studies. No statistic existed—nor does it now—to compensate for such measurement irregularities, but this difficulty was glossed over by the EPA.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just as bad, many IBT studies appeared to be shorter in time than protocols called for. As David Clegg of Canada's Health Protection Branch explained to the meeting:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Now, we have come across the 90-day study where the study started on, let's say, the 1st of June. The invoice for shipment of the test material from the firm was the 9th of June, and the diet preparation sheets are for the 12th of June.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"In other words, by the time the diet was prepared, according to the raw data, the study has been underway for 12 days for a 90-day study.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"This does not necessarily invalidate the study, of course. You can still get some information from it, but the whole base line, which you are working from, has to be altered to deal with an 88-day [sic] study or whatever length it is and conclusions have to be drawn on this sort of basis." (pp. 34-35).
</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA also noted that IBT had major problems with its controls. It had run a system known as "common controls." These controls were often in different rooms or carried out at different times, presumably with rats from different batches. EPA proposed cobbling such experiments together and thus making use of these controls. Clegg's tone was apologetic:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I can't say that I am very happy about this on scientific grounds, but we are trying to run this as a salvage operation and, if we can come up with something which gives us a reasonable base line for controls which may be applicable to a number of studies, then, when controls are not available, we'll compare them against those controls," he said (p. 41).</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA Adopts Unsigned Studies</font></strong></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA's Arnold also admitted at the meeting what appeared to be EPA's own historical fraud. In revisiting original data sent to them by IBT, manufacturers might find that, in the past, EPA had itself examined the tissue samples and determined there to be "no significant finding" when in fact "the truth of the matter is the organ was never examined" (Arnold, p. 102).</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By the time the FDA and EPA had taken a strong interest in the testing lab, IBT had begun a "policy not to sign" its own reports, according to the transcript, indicating that staff were unwilling to stand behind the findings.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Fred Arnold told the attendees, "A number of scientists, who may have been involved in the early states of a test, are no longer there and nobody can state, categorically, that everything reflected in the report, in fact, is borne out by the raw data" (pp. 63-64).</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Arnold admitted that EPA had in the past sometimes accepted unsigned studies. So he stated that its remedy to the new signature problem would be to adopt such unsigned studies in order not "to create a double standard now" (p. 64), effectively adopting IBT's unprecedented practices as its own.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was later uncovered in court proceedings that IBT also forged signatures.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Howard Johnson Take-Home</font></strong></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Three IBT officials went to prison, closing a chapter on a massive scientific fraud, but the book was never closed.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"As the Howard Johnson transcript reveals, a majority of the IBT studies were never intended to be redone, and still underlie the U.S. chemical regulatory system," said Latham.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Author Carol Van Strum commented on the significance of the transcript for Center for Media and Democracy:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The 1978 Howard Johnson transcript records a crucial meeting of EPA, Canadian, and pesticide industry officials to discuss EPA's response to massive fraud in the safety tests for pesticide registrations. At the meeting, Fred T. Arnold, chief of EPA Regulatory Analysis and Lab Audits, assured industry that EPA's discovery of fraudulent, invalid, or nonexistent safety tests would 'not interfere with the ability to control pests and market pesticides.' This document was the linchpin of my book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bitter-Fog-Herbicides-Human-Rights/dp/1505444411/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?encoding=UTF8&qid=1501001060&sr=1-1" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">A Bitter Fog: Herbicides and Human Rights</a>, documenting the government's acceptance of phony industry studies while dismissing reports of human illness, death, involuntary abortions, birth defects, and other effects of pesticide exposure."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Poison Papers website and document trove is a project of the Bioscience Resource Project of Ithaca, New York, and the Center for Media and Democracy of Madison, Wisconsin. You can explore the Poison Papers documents at <a href="https://www.poisonpapers.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">PoisonPapers.org</a>. You can read the illuminating <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3417915-IBT-Howard-Johnson-Transcript.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Howard Johnson's manuscript here</a>.</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx map</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Report: 140 House Members Vote Against Chemical Safeguards Every Time</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Environmental Working Group Action Fund, the political arm of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), released a first-ever report that scores how each member of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on chemical policy and safety.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The scorecard shows that 140 House members voted against chemical safeguards every time, while 149 members consistently voted for chemical safety protections.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"While no president has ever done as much to weaken safeguards for toxic chemicals as Donald Trump, too many members of Congress have collaborated with the Trump administration or cast votes in favor of policies that reversed or delayed chemical bans, gutted chemical safety rules, rejected sound science, weakened worker and consumer protections, and denied justice to asbestos victims," the report said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report specifically focused on 17 bills and amendments that were up for a vote during the 115th and 114th Congresses.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The EWG Action Fund also singled out several lawmakers, including Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.), Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), who the action fund says introduced or co-sponsored measures that weaken existing chemical safety laws.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Over and over, too many legislators voted to support President Trump's agenda to eliminate toxic chemical safeguards," said Scott Faber, speaking on behalf of EWG Action Fund, in a statement received by EcoWatch.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Too many members of Congress have collaborated with the Trump administration to advance policies that reject sound science and weaken worker and consumer protections," Faber added. "And many more stood by silently when Trump's EPA reversed or delayed chemical bans or gutted chemical safety rules."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Most Republican members of Congress were graded poorly in the report. However, the action fund<b> praised </b>the lawmakers that bucked their party to vote for chemical safety, including Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and others who voted to protect <b>asbestos </b>victims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The action fund also noted that Rep. Dana <b>Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) voted for funding chemical reviews and against a farm bill that included pesticide safety loopholes.</b> Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted against efforts to weaken agency science, and Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis voted against toxic air pollution loopholes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Asbestos | Why It's Dangerous and How it Causes Cancer ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Russian Asbestos Company Makes Trump Its Poster Boy ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why Asbestos Is Still a Major Public Health Threat in the U.S. ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump Allows Asbestos to Return Under New EPA Policy – Rolling ... ›</font></div></div><div><h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/house-members-vote-on-chemicals-2606004094.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Report: 140 House Members Vote Against Chemical Safeguards Every Time</font></a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2606004094" data-authors="Lorraine Chow" data-headline="Report: 140 House Members Vote Against Chemical Safeguards Every Time" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief"><p style="margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Environmental Working Group Action Fund, the political arm of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Environmental Working Group</a> (EWG), released a first-ever <a href="https://www.ewgaction.org/protectyourhealth/EWG-Action-Fund-Reg-Reform.pdf" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">report</a> that scores how each member of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">chemical</a> policy and safety.</font></p><p style="margin: 10px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The scorecard shows that 140 House members voted against chemical safeguards every time, while 149 members consistently voted for chemical safety protections.</font></p></div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: 0px; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0;"><div class="widgetshow-more with-primary-color js-keep-reading js-page-view-and-reload-embeds" style="cursor: pointer; border-radius: 15px; float: left; padding: 7px; font-weight: 600; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 240);"><span class="show-more js-expand"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Keep reading...</font></span></div></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/epa-toxic-chemicals.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/epa-toxic-chemicals.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[The American Chemistry Council said in a statement last week that the E.P.A.’s approach met “the requirements of the law,” adding that it wanted the risk assessments to be “protective and practical.”]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump administration, after heavy lobbying by the chemical industry, is scaling back the way the federal government determines health and safety risks associated with the most dangerous chemicals on the market, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency show.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under a law passed by Congress during the final year of the Obama administration, the E.P.A. was required for the first time to evaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals and determine if they should face new restrictions, or even be removed from the market. The chemicals include many in everyday use, such as dry-cleaning solvents, paint strippers and substances used in health and beauty products like shampoos and cosmetics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as it moves forward reviewing the first batch of 10 chemicals, the E.P.A. has in most cases decided to exclude from its calculations any potential exposure caused by the substances’ presence in the air, the ground or water, according to more than 1,500 pages of documents released last week by the agency.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Instead, the agency will focus on possible harm caused by direct contact with a chemical in the workplace or elsewhere. The approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals — leading to the contamination of drinking water, for instance — will often not be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">THE APPROACH IS A BIG VICTORY FOR THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, WHICH HAS REPEATEDLY PRESSED THE E.P.A. TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF ITS RISK EVALUATIONS. NANCY B. BECK, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S APPOINTEE TO HELP OVERSEE THE E.P.A.’S TOXIC CHEMICAL UNIT, PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS AN EXECUTIVE AT THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, ONE OF THE INDUSTRY’S MAIN LOBBYING GROUPS.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A spokesman for the E.P.A. said that the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other laws already provided the agency with the authority to regulate chemicals found in the air, rivers and drinking water, so there was no need to revisit them under the 2016 law, which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The agency can “better protect human health and the environment by focusing on those pathways that are likely to represent the greatest areas of concern to E.P.A.,” said the spokesman, Jahan Wilcox.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Image</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nancy B. Beck, who oversees the E.P.A.’s toxic chemical unit, previously worked at one of the industry’s main lobbying groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CreditU.S. Senate Committee Channel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But three former agency officials, including a former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, said that the E.P.A.’s approach would result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is ridiculous,” said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. “You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, and Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, who played leading roles in passing the 2016 law, said the E.P.A. was ignoring its directive for a comprehensive analysis of risks.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation’s broken chemical safety laws, but Pruitt’s E.P.A. is failing to put the new law to use as intended,” Mr. Udall said in a statement referring to Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A spokesman for Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, who is chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the agency, declined to comment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cumulatively, the approach being taken for the 10 chemicals means the E.P.A.’s risk analysis will not take into account an estimated 68 million pounds a year of emissions, according to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund, based on agency data.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Beck declined requests for comment. She had pushed the E.P.A. during the Obama administration to narrow the scope of the risk evaluations, in a fashion similar to the approach under her watch.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also helping oversee the risk evaluation effort is Erik Baptist, a former senior lawyer at the American Petroleum Institute, another big player in the chemical industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the approach, the E.P.A. will examine what harm can be caused, for example, to anyone directly exposed to perchloroethylene — a dry-cleaning solvent and metal degreaser designated by the E.P.A. as a likely carcinogen — during manufacturing or when using it in dry cleaning, carpet cleaning or handling certain ink-removal products.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the agency will not focus on exposures that occur from traces of the chemical found in drinking water in 44 states as a result of improper disposal over decades, the E.P.A. documents say. The decision conflicts with a risk assessment plan detailed by the agency a year ago, which included drinking water. And the change came after the American Chemistry Council argued in February last year that “the E.P.A. has discretion to select the conditions of use that it will consider.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The agency will also not consider the hazards of perchloroethylene discharged into streams or lakes, landfills or the air from dry-cleaning stores or manufacturing or processing plants, the documents say.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The documents contain similar conclusions about nine of the 10 chemicals under review. One of these is 1,4-dioxane, which can be found in small amounts in antifreeze, deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics and is considered “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Another is trichloroethylene, which is used to make a refrigerant chemical and remove grease from metal parts and is associated with cancers of the liver, kidneys and blood.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other changes identified in the E.P.A. documents narrow the definitions of certain chemicals, including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will not be included in the risk assessments, one agency staff member said, nor will the 8.8 million pounds a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1 million pounds discarded in routine dump sites.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The most likely outcome of the changes will be that the agency finds lower levels of risks associated with many chemicals, and as a result, imposes fewer new restrictions or prohibitions, several current and former agency officials said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“They don’t want to open Pandora’s box by looking comprehensively at the risk, as they may prove to be significant and then they have to deal with it,” said Robert M. Sussman, a former chemical industry lawyer and E.P.A. official who now works as a consultant to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, an advocacy group.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite the changes, the E.P.A. is still expected to ban the use of methylene chloride as a paint stripper soon — an action first proposed at the end of the Obama administration. The chemical, one of the 10 under review, is a popular ingredient used in dozens of products sold at home improvement stores nationwide, and has been blamed in dozens of deaths.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A collection of more than a dozen groups — representing environmental, public-health and labor organizations — are suing the E.P.A. to challenge earlier changes in the toxic chemical evaluation program. The case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div></div></div></div></div>