EDF Health

Selected tag(s): EPA

Flint area residents raise the bar on environmental justice concerns

By Ugbaad Ali / Published: December 14, 2021

Ugbaad Ali, Community Environmental Health Tom Graff Fellow

We all deserve to live in a healthy and vibrant community, yet many residents of Flint, Michigan, are overburdened by a lifetime of toxic exposures and environmental injustice. Recently, a coalition of environmental justice groups and community organizers in Flint used their combined power to organize against the siting of a new hot mix asphalt facility.

The Stop Ajax Asphalt Coalition was formed to protect neighboring communities from further environmental harm. The Coalition, which includes residents from Flint and Genesee Township, St. Francis Prayer Center, C.A.U.T.I.O.N, Environmental Transformation Movement of Flint, Flint Rising, Greater Holy Temple Church, Michigan United, R. L. Jones Community Outreach Center Campus, and Mi JustUs, submitted extensive comments and generated hundreds of public comments to contest the state’s permitting of a hot mixed asphalt facility by Ajax Materials Corp. near homes, schools, and parks.

Historically air permit decisions have been made in isolation, ignoring the cumulative impact from surrounding exposure sources. After hearing from the Coalition, the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – which serves Michigan and five other states – weighed in with a letter that recommended Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) “conduct a cumulative analysis of the projected emissions from all emission units at the proposed facility, fugitive emissions from the proposed facility, and emissions from nearby industrial facilities, to provide a more complete assessment of the ambient air impacts of the proposed facility on this community.” It concluded that “because of the environmental conditions already facing this community, and the potential for disproportionate impacts, the siting of this facility may raise civil rights concerns.”

The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) regional office also  raised serious civil rights concerns in a letter to EGLE, highlighting that the proposed location is near two HUD-assisted communities housing low-income families of color – and expressing concern that EGLE failed to engage HUD on a decision that could impact HUD-assisted residents.

“This isn’t a defeat for the citizens of Flint.
We’re just getting started.”
 – Anthony Paciorek, Michigan United (ABC News)

Despite the public comments and federal agency letters, EGLE approved the air permit, but with tightened requirements. The Coalition remains concerned about the siting of the facility and is committed to challenging the state to require additional measures to protect their community. Read More »

Posted in Air pollution, Civil rights / Also tagged , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response

Loosening industry’s grip on EPA’s new chemicals program

By / Published: September 22, 2021

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[I delivered a shorter version of these comments at the September 22, 2021 webinar titled “Hair on Fire and Yes Packages! How the Biden Administration Can Reverse the Chemical Industry’s Undue Influence,” cosponsored by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), NH Safe Water Alliance, and EDF.  A recording of the webinar will shortly be available here.  The webinar, second in a series, follows on EPA whistleblower disclosures first appearing in a complaint filed by PEER that are detailed in a series of articles by Sharon Lerner in The Intercept.

The insularity of the New Chemicals Program – where staff only interact with industry and there is no real engagement with other stakeholders – spawns and perpetuates these industry-friendly and un-health-protective policies.

I have closely tracked the Environmental Protection Agency’s New Chemicals Program for many years.  Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that the program does not serve the agency’s mission and the public interest, but rather the interests of the chemical industry.  Despite the major reforms Congress made to the program in 2016 when it overhauled the Toxic Substances Control Act, the New Chemicals Program is so badly broken that nothing less than a total reset can fix the problems.

Revelations emerging through responses Environmental Defense Fund finally received to a FOIA request we made two years ago, and through the disclosures of courageous whistleblowers who did or still work in the New Chemicals Program, confirm what I have long suspected, looking in from the outside.  The program:

  • uses practices that allow the chemical industry to easily access and hold sway over EPA reviews and decisions on the chemicals they seek to bring to market;
  • has developed a deeply embedded culture of secrecy that blocks public scrutiny and accountability;
  • employs policies – often unwritten – that undermine Congress’ major reforms to the law and reflect only industry viewpoints; and
  • operates through a management system and managers, some still in place, that regularly prioritize industry’s demands for quick decisions that allow their new chemicals onto the market with no restrictions, over reliance on the best science and protection of public and worker health.

Many of the worst abuses coming to light took place during the Trump administration, and it is tempting to believe the change in administrations has fixed the problems.  It has not.  The damaging practices, culture, policies and management systems predate the last administration and laid the foundation for the abuses.  Highly problematic decisions continue to be made even in recent weeks.

I am encouraged by recent statements and actions of Dr. Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator of the EPA office that oversees TSCA implementation.  They clearly are moves in the right direction.  But it is essential that the deep-rooted, systemic nature of the problem be forthrightly acknowledged and forcefully addressed.

Let me provide some examples of each of the problems I just noted.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Health science, Industry influence, PFAS, Public health, Regulation, TSCA reform, Worker safety / Also tagged , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Beyond paper: PFAS linked to common plastic packaging used for food, cosmetics, and much more

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: July 7, 2021

Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director, Maricel Maffini, consultant, and Tom Bruton with Green Science Policy Institute. 

Update August 11, 21 – Added FDA’s Response to FOIA.

Results from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation into PFAS-contaminated pesticides have much broader, concerning implications for food, cosmetics, shampoos, household cleaning products, and other consumer products, as well as recycling. This investigation, first announced earlier this year, found that fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers used for pesticide storage contained a mix of short and long-chain per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA, that leached into the product. From what EPA can tell, the PFAS were not intentionally added to the HDPE containers but are hypothesized to have been produced when fluorine gas was applied to the plastic.

Since EPA released its investigation, we have learned the disturbing fact that the fluorination of plastic is commonly used to treat hundreds of millions of polyethylene and polypropylene containers each year ranging from packaged food and consumer products that individuals buy to larger containers used by retailers such as restaurants to even larger drums used by manufacturers to store and transport fluids.

The process of polyethylene fluorination was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1983 for food packaging to reduce oxygen and moisture migration through the plastic that would cause foods to spoil. The fluorination process forms a barrier on the plastic’s surface and it also strengthens the packaging.

Fluorination of plastic leading to the inadvertent creation of PFAS may be another reason these ‘forever chemicals’ show up in many unexpected places. This significant source of PFAS contamination needs to be addressed. Much remains to be resolved as FDA and EPA actively investigate this new source of PFAS; however, preventive steps need to be taken quickly, especially since other PFAS-free barrier materials are available as alternatives.

Growing evidence links PFAS to a wide range of serious health effects – from developmental problems to cancer.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Health science, PFAS, Regulation / Also tagged , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Momentum is building to fund lead pipe replacement across the country: New video

By Joanna Slaney / Published: June 10, 2021

Joanna Slaney, Legislative Director and Sam Lovell, Communications Manager. 

As Congress pursues infrastructure legislation, it’s clear that replacing lead pipes is a priority issue. This is welcome news for our health, the country’s infrastructure, and the economy. We are glad to see the attention on this issue from Congress and from the Administration with the inclusion of funding to fully replace lead pipes in the President’s American Jobs Plan.

And it’s no wonder there is growing interest in this initiative, the latest polling from the Navigator shows support for funding lead pipe replacement at 83% nationally – including 73% of Republicans, 80% of Independents, and 91% of Democrats. This echoes earlier polls which have found similar overwhelming bipartisan support. 

As EDF has written before, a $45 billion investment in lead pipe replacement over ten years would:

  • Protect public health by enabling water systems around the country to quickly begin eliminating the LSLs to protect residents.
  • More than pay for itself. Fully replacing lead service lines across the country would yield more than $205 billion in societal benefits over 35 years — a 450% return on the investment – due to prevented heart disease deaths from adult lead exposure.
  • Permanently upgrade infrastructure by facilitating critical upgrades to water distribution systems in a way that protects residents from increased lead in their drinking water when the LSL is disturbed.
  • Reduce disparities by enabling utilities to fully replace LSLs, thereby resolving equity concerns that utilities currently face in replacing the lead pipe on private property.
  • Create jobs for the plumbers and contractors who will perform the LSL replacements. This is shovel-ready work that involves construction and plumbing crews conducting the replacement.

With bills in both the House and the Senate focusing on funding lead pipe replacement, it’s important we keep pushing to ensure the federal government follows through on getting the lead out of our drinking water. 

See EDF’s new video that explains why lead service line replacement is important, and why it’s a no-brainer for the federal government to invest in.

Posted in Health policy, Lead, Public health / Also tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

A consequential day in the effort to prevent lead poisoning

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: May 18, 2021

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

Lead poisoning prevention advocates should mark May 14, 2021 as a consequential day in our collective efforts to protect public health. Last week, two decisions and a preliminary report were issued that lay a solid foundation for further progress. When translated into action, the decisions and report should result in significantly reduced lead exposure for children. These developments were:

  • A court ruling on lead-based paint hazard standards: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider – and most likely tighten – the agency’s 2019 revisions to its lead-based paint (LBP) hazard standard that define the levels of lead in paint, dust, and soil that are dangerous. The current standards remain in place until EPA revises them to comply with the law and the court’s order. This decision has significant implications for home renovations, real estate disclosures, lead cleanups, and homeowner testing. This welcome step toward stronger protections for children was only possible thanks to Earthjustice and the petitioners that challenged EPA’s flawed rule.
  • Lowered federal elevated blood lead level: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lead Exposure and Prevention Advisory Committee (LEPAC) unanimously recommended that the agency lower its blood lead reference level (aka “elevated blood lead level” or EBLL) from 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) of lead in young children’s blood to 3.5 µg/dL. CDC appears ready to act on the recommendation. When it does, the decision will have significant implications for state and local health and housing agencies reacting to blood lead testing results for at-risk children and for action levels for lead in food.
  • New national survey of lead-based paint hazards: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) presented to LEPAC the preliminary results of its American Healthy Homes Survey II (AHHS-II), a long-overdue update to its 2006 survey. This survey of lead-based paint hazards serves as the basis for federal agencies to set priorities, assess impacts of policy decisions, and track progress. The results of samples taken in 2018-19 shows modest but significant progress across many demographics including African American households, government-supported households, and households in poverty – most likely an indication that the federal investment to fix low-income housing is paying off.

These actions put added urgency to President Biden’s America Jobs Plan that includes $45 billion in federal funding to fully replace the nation’s 9 million lead service lines and $213 billion for housing – both critical aspects of our nation’s infrastructure that need a lead poisoning prevention-oriented upgrade. We encourage Congress to provide at least $19 billion as part of an investment in housing to reduce lead-based paint hazards in pre-1940 housing, especially by replacing old, single-pane windows to get the combined benefits of safer and more energy efficient homes.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Lead, Regulation / Also tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

The damage done, Part 2: A post-mortem on the Trump EPA’s assault on TSCA’s new chemicals program

By / Published: April 9, 2021

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Part 2 of a 2-part series (see Part 1 here)

Last week’s announcement by EPA about improvements it is making to EPA’s reviews of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) indicated it will begin by reversing two of the most damaging policy changes the Trump EPA made to the program:

Under the Trump EPA policies being reversed, at least 425 new chemicals were granted unfettered market access despite potential risks or insufficient information.

  • EPA will cease avoiding issuance of the binding orders TSCA requires to address potential risk or insufficient information:
    “EPA will stop issuing determinations of ‘not likely to present an unreasonable risk’ based on the existence of proposed SNURs [Significant New Use Rules]. Rather than excluding reasonably foreseen conditions of use from EPA’s review of a new substance by means of a SNUR, Congress anticipated that EPA would review all conditions of use when making determinations on new chemicals and, where appropriate, issue orders to address potential risks. Going forward, when EPA’s review leads to a conclusion that one or more uses may present an unreasonable risk, or when EPA lacks the information needed to make a safety finding, the agency will issue an order to address those potential risks.”
  • EPA will cease assuming workers are adequately protected from chemical exposures absent binding requirements on employers:
    “EPA now intends to ensure necessary protections for workers identified in its review of new chemicals through regulatory means. Where EPA identifies a potential unreasonable risk to workers that could be addressed with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and hazard communication, EPA will no longer assume that workers are adequately protected under OSHA’s worker protection standards and updated Safety Data Sheets (SDS). Instead, EPA will identify the absence of worker safeguards as “reasonably foreseen” conditions of use, and mandate necessary protections through a TSCA section 5(e) order, as appropriate.”

If you want the details on what was wrong with these policies – legally, scientifically, and health-wise – see EDF’s comments submitted to the agency last year and a summary of them here.

It’s no accident that these two policies were prioritized for reversal.  As I discuss below, each had massive adverse impact on the rigor and outcome of EPA’s reviews of new chemicals.  The result was that the Trump EPA allowed many hundreds of new chemicals to enter commerce under no or insufficient conditions.  It did this by:  1) illegally restricting its review to only the intended uses of a new chemical selected by its maker, hence failing to follow TSCA’s mandate to identify and assess reasonably foreseen uses of the chemicals; and 2) dismissing significant risks to workers that its own reviews identified, despite TSCA’s heightened mandate to protect workers.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform, Worker safety / Also tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed