Environmental Protection Agency Is Under Fire For Recent Hires With Ties To Industry

Recently, the New York Times ran an expose titled "Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted
on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots" -- which highlighted the newly hired EPA employees Nancy Beck and Liz Bowman.  Additionally, Michael Dourson who has been nominated for a top level position is having great difficulty progressing through his senate confirmation.  These three people have had ties with industry (chemical, coal, and other) in the past before joining the Environmental Protection Agency.   Below is a video and a couple of excerpts that illustrate the change (of employees) that is taking place at the EPA and the potential consequences of these changes.



With these changes, the public is now becoming the new 'watchdog' since the changing tide of the EPA is inclined to cater to industry while putting the public at risk.  Each of us should be mindful of the change which is occurring right before our eyes.  Here is the video of an interview with Senator Cory Booker describing the dangers with the nominations to the EPA from the Trump Administration (just under 8 minutes in length):

Wow.  EPA employee Liz Bowman should not be making statements like the one contained in the video above.  This is a federal agency, not a private corporation.  Of course, the news of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stacking the EPA with industry representatives is not completely surprising given their ties to industry.  President Trump has advocated for less regulations which are apparently "restricting business" or are "job killing regulations" over the last 10 months since he assumed office.  Although, the complete change in the environment of the EPA with the intention of "privatization" of the culture is completely frightening -- especially when the removal of regulations means threatening the environment and its inhabitants (humans along with other species).



There are concerns on behalf of the members of the Senate which were raised during the last few weeks of Dr. Michael Dourson's confirmation hearing.  Specifically, the concerns were regarding Dr. Michael Dourson's past ties and records with respect to his work in industry.  According to a recent article from the website 'The Intercept' titled "TRUMP’S EPA CHEMICAL SAFETY NOMINEE MAY BE TOO TOXIC EVEN FOR REPUBLICANS" many different officials had questions about accidents which occurred in their respective states:

Resistance to his nomination is coming from red states that have been directly harmed by chemicals Dourson has defended on behalf of industry. The senators from West Virginia, for example, might have been expected to fall in line behind Dourson. But in a hearing last month, West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito questioned the nominee about his involvement with two chemicals that have affected her state: PFOA and MCHM, both of which, Capito said, had “very much touched the lives of my fellow West Virginians.” Capito, who didn’t respond to inquiries for this story, has yet to announce how she will vote.

Dourson was responsible for setting a state standard for PFOA that was thousands of times higher than the EPA’s current safety level. His consulting company Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment also worked on MCHM, one of the chemicals that spilled into West Virginia’s Elk River in 2014, leaving some 300,000 people without drinking water.

West Virginia’s other senator, Joe Manchin, announced his intention to vote against Dourson last month. Though a Democrat, Manchin often votes with Republicans, but not this time. West Virginia is “unfortunately familiar with the dangers that can arise when we neglect to properly comply with and enforce our chemical regulations,” Manchin said in a statement.

Dourson is also facing problems in another red state struggling with chemical contamination: North Carolina. While both Republican senators from the state voted for Pruitt and Wehrum, neither has committed to Dourson. The state is home to Camp Lejeune, the military base where TCE and other carcinogenic chemicals seeped into drinking water, leading to a cluster of cancer cases. As retired Marine Jerry Ensminger pointed out in the Raleigh News and Observer, Dourson’s evaluation of TCE, which was paid for by the American Chemistry Council, calculated a safety level that was less protective than the one set by the EPA. Ensminger, whose daughter died of leukemia at Camp Lejeune, has called on his senators to oppose Dourson, whom he calls a “walking, talking example of conflict of interest.”

North Carolina is also ground zero for GenX, the latest in a family of chemicals known as PFAS to be found in drinking water. DuPont and its spinoff, Chemours, have dumped at least 1 million pounds of PFAS into North Carolina’s Cape Fear River since 1980. GenX and other PFAS are unregulated, which is limiting the state’s ability to clean it up.

The ability to regulate chemicals in the environment lies within the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Methods of determining levels of toxicity are determined for a given chemical are controversial at times.  Risk assessment in industry and academia have been at odds over the last few decades.  One overarching issue is that for a research at a university to duplicate the risk associated with a given compound, the testing data needs to be known from the corporation.  Corporations are not required to hand over the information.  Just a 'safe level' to assist either concerned citizens or government agencies to set policy -- which is extremely scary.



Another troubling reality is that not all toxicologists will agree on the 'degree of toxicity' with a given chemical.  In general, there are panels which are formed and review testing data and agree on a 'safe level' for the public to be exposed to.  Although, if you were to ask each toxicologist walking the Earth today, there would not be an overwhelming agreement.  Which is why continuous debate and optimization of 'safe levels' of a given chemical must be determined over time.  With more accurate testing and more data, a more accurate 'safe level' can be set.  That does not mean that each of the current 'safe levels' are incorrect.



Recently in an article in 'The New York Times' Titled "Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots" a troubling new development in the form of regulation by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has come to light.  EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has decided based on advisement from officials to insert regulation which makes the 'tracking' of dangerous chemicals more difficult:

WASHINGTON — For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.

The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.

So scientists and administrators in the E.P.A.’s Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.

The revision was among more than a dozen demanded by the appointee, Nancy B. Beck, after she joined the E.P.A.’s toxic chemical unit in May as a top deputy. For the previous five years, she had been an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association.

The changes directed by Dr. Beck may result in an “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment” caused by PFOA and other so-called legacy chemicals no longer sold on the market, the Office of Water’s top official warned in a confidential internal memo obtained by The New York Times.

Even though the chemical PerFluoroOctanoic Acid is not sold on the market anymore does not mean that 'tracking' health data is not needed.  According to the Wikipedia page for PFOA the chemical will persist in the environment indefinitely:

PFOA persists indefinitely in the environment. It is a toxicant and carcinogen in animals. PFOA has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the general US population in the low and sub-parts per billion (ppb) range, and levels are higher in chemical plant employees and surrounding subpopulations. How general populations are exposed to PFOA is not completely understood. PFOA has been detected in industrial waste, stain resistant carpets, carpet cleaning liquids, house dust, microwave popcorn bags, water, food, some cookware and PTFE such as Teflon.

As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. The studies concluded that there was probably an association between PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension.[7]

The primary manufacturer of PFOS, the 3M Company (known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company from 1902 to 2002), began a production phase-out in 2002 in response to concerns expressed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[8]:2 Eight other companies agreed to gradually phase out the manufacturing of the chemical by 2015.[8]:3

By 2014 EPA had listed PFOA—free acid, and PFOS—potassium salt, as emergent contaminants:

PFOA and PFOS are extremely persistent in the environment and resistant to typical environmental degradation processes. [They] are widely distributed across the higher trophic levels and are found in soil, air and groundwater at sites across the United States. The toxicity, mobility and bioaccumulation potential of PFOS and PFOA pose potential adverse effects for the environment and human health.[8]:1

PerFluoroOctanoic Acid is a robust chemical which is resistant to environmental degradation.  Which is why manufacturers enjoyed the use of the chemical in various products.  Otherwise, the chemical would break down easily and with it the product in which PFOA was incorporated into.  This is just one chemical among many which is problematic to the health and safety of the consumer.



Additionally, the 'safe levels' of a given chemical can be set by ignoring various data sets which is common and often results in setting levels much higher (which is a direct threat to human health) than should be.  As mentioned in the first excerpt above, Dr. Dourson set the threshold for PFOA 'thousands of times higher' than should be.  Imagine the damage done by his reckless behavior which was guided by industry.  Of course, he has a history of problems.  Take for instance the spill of the chemical 'MCHM' -- methylcyclohexanemethanol -- which caused over 300,000 West Virginia residents to be without water for months.



Consumers of the news will remember the controversy surrounding the toxicity (or lack thereof) of metheylcyclohexanemethanol.  Turns out that Dr. Dourson set the risk limit.  Events such as these should cause consumers to be outraged.  Furthermore, each of us should be on the phone contacting our elected official and informing them that we care about chemical safety.  Do not allow Dr. Dourson to work with the EPA any longer.  He is a consultant already -- even while seeking a higher position at the EPA.  Check out my earlier blog post which shows a letter from over 100 organizations opposing the nomination of Dr. Dourson for the position at the Environmental Protection Agency.



Conclusion...



There will always be disagreements among toxicologists about the 'safe levels' of a given chemical.  Although, with greater amount of safety data and health data -- our regulators can be more precise.  The current Administration has decided to populate the top positions at Federal agencies with people with great ties to their respective industries.  The result of this action throws more responsibility on the consumer -- i.e. the public -- to serve as the 'watchdog' for the safety of the inhabitants of the Earth.



Each of us should be trying to understand the issues at hand and weigh in (by letter writing or phoning) our elected officials.  Just the act of informing them that we care will go a long way.  They have the power to get corporations to hand over 'safety data' and demand action (prosecution) where necessary.  Furthermore, congress can act and change the quality of the system.  In order to do so, each of us needs to push them to do so.  Otherwise, the status quo is acceptable in their minds.  The status quo is unacceptable and each should be reminded of this simple fact.  We deserve to live in a healthy environment rid free of dangerous chemicals -- when possible.


Below are related blog posts.  These will help put into context the blog post above:



Listed from most recent to oldest (2017):


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


Is Dr. Michael Dourson Good For The EPA?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts


How Is Our Environment (Climate, etc.) Becoming Politicized?


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real


Congress Is Not Being Honest With The Public By Passing The HONEST Act?


Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?


What Does America Drinking Water Look Like With Little-to-No Regulation?


Why Is International Climate Action Important To Your Higher Education Institution?


Scientists Write President Trump Regarding Climate Action


Does The United States Really Sell Oil To Fund Science Research?


A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???